Podcast Theme Intro

​

Hi! My name is Nicole. Welcome to the Just a Peaceful Climate podcast. 

 

Allow me to introduce myself. I am a master’s student at the Center for Justice and Peacebuilding. It will likely not come as a surprise to many of my classmates that I am very interested in exploring the intersections of justice, peacebuilding, and planet care.

Why? Well, I believe that climate change is fundamentally connected to justice and peacebuilding-related issues. 

 

Tamela Knight tells us that climate change is a “threat multiplier.” In other words, it is a factor that contributes to social and political unrest and violence, often related to an inaccessibility of things like food and water sources. 

 

Climate change is also clearly a justice issue. Reece Jones explains in his book Violent Borders that countries of the global minority (also known as “developed countries”) are responsible for the vast majority of carbon dioxide production - a leading factor in climate change. However, global majority countries (often otherwise known as “third world” or “underdeveloped” countries) are the ones feeling the most immediate impacts of climate change.

 

The good news is that there are some people and organizations that are working to address these things holistically. And: We can learn from them. Join me for the following 5 episodes for these conversations!

 

Music transition

 

In this first episode, we will be looking into a well-established organization called the Environmental Peacebuilding Association to explore one way of tying together peacebuilding and the environment. 

 

Oh, and just a heads up. Throughout the podcast, you might hear this a few times: sound bite. That sound means it’s time to define something to make sure we are all on the same page. And this sound: sound bite -- means we are going back to the regularly scheduled podcast!

 

Let’s get started, shall we?

 

Music transition

 

So. Climate change and peacebuilding.

Sound bite. You all know what that means! Let’s define these terms real quick, just so that we are all clear about what they mean. The definition that underlies my use of the term “climate change” comes from NASA. They note that while the earth’s climate has changed throughout history, “The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.” The impacts of this human-induced climate change include a global temperature rise, warming oceans, shrinking ice sheets, glacial retreats, decreased snow cover, sea level rise, and an increase in extreme weather events. 

​

Peacebuilding, meanwhile, is defined by Woodrow and Chigas as “measures designed to consolidate peaceful relations and strengthen viable political, socio-economic, and cultural institutions capable of handling conflict, and to strengthen other mechanisms that will either create or support the necessary conditions for sustained peace.” In other words, it is working to strengthen relationships and support the conditions needed for long-term peace. Sound bite.

 

Alright. I’m glad we have that sorted out. Now we can move forward together! 

 

So let’s take a look at an organization that ties together peacebuilding and the environment. It’s called the Environmental Peacebuilding Association. I have chosen to start with this organization for a couple of reasons. First, it is one of the only groups that comes up with a google search of the words “environmental peacebuilding.” Based on lots of different word combinations, it was hard for me to find organizations that explicitly claim to combine environmental and peacebuilding efforts. And lastly, the organization has established itself enough to be funded and supported by some significant groups including the Environmental Law Institute and the Martin Dickinson Charitable Fund.

 

The Environmental peacebuilding association's website describes environmental peacebuilding as something that “integrates natural resource management in conflict prevention, mitigation, resolution, and recovery to build resilience in communities affected by conflict.” They focus on involving researchers, practitioners, and decision-makers in their work. Its aims include identifying research that can help policymakers, aid practitioners in developing their skills and knowledge, and encourage interactions between key stakeholders. 

 

The environmental peacebuilding framework that the Association uses focuses on what they call “fragile post-conflict societies” and “developing countries.” Peacebuilding for them is specifically something that happens post-armed-conflict. It acknowledges how natural resources (or lack of natural resources) can contribute to violent conflict, and how wars can cause environmental devastation, such as Kuwait oil spills. The “environmental” aspect of “environmental peacebuilding” primarily means natural resource management for those post-conflict societies.

 

There are a few key issues I see here. First, nowhere in any of their online content did I see the words “climate change.” It appears that climate change is not central to the Environmental Peacebuilding Association’s framework, which is concerning. They consider natural resources, but don’t seem to examine the broader landscape of climate change as a factor in conflict.

 

Second, it lacks a decolonial analysis. No where in their content does it mention the lasting impacts of colonization in these areas that the Association works within. For many of these areas, colonial legacies are likely a root cause of violent conflict. Wabanaki activist and attorney Sherri Mitchell writes about the importance of decolonization in her book Sacred Instructions. She defines colonization as “the act of appropriating or forcibly overtaking a place and exerting control over it.” She goes on to say, “When we talk about colonization in the modern day, we are addressing the lingering systems of control and the insidious patterns of thinking that colonization brings.” In terms of land, controlling the sources of human survival is a core element of present-day colonization. Those who have control over food, water, and air have control over the people. While it does not appear that the Environmental Peacebuilding Association is seeking control over these things, it is not clear whether or how they assure local access and control of these elements.

 

Some of these conflicts that the Environmental Peacebuilding Association aims to address may be played out down the line as “natural-resource-motivated conflict,” but were there colonial forces at work that pushed the people to that point? For example, some would say that the conflict in The Congo is due to fights over natural resources and corrupt leaders having control over them. And on the surface that certainly seems true. However, it is important to historicize this and ask why. Why does this area which is so rich in natural resources fight over them? What caused things to be this way? You can’t just take the conflict out of its historical context. This region was once colonized and ruled by Belgium. Following this trail can offer an alternative story as to the underlying reasons for violence. As Frantz Fanon notes in his book The Wretched of the Earth, “The violence of the colonial regime and the counter-violence of the native balance each other and respond to each other in an extraordinary reciprocal homogeneity… The development of violence among the colonized people will be proportionate to the violence exercised by the threatened colonial regime.”

 

It feels related to the colonization conversation that the organization seems to prioritize negative peace and neglect positive peace.

​

Sound bite. Negative peace and positive peace are terms that I often hear used in the peacebuilding world. Let’s turn to Oliver Richmond for some helpful definitions. Negative peace simply means the absence of violence. It is more basic, but also more insecure. Alternatively, positive peace is a more holistic view and aims to remove direct and structural violence. In other words, it includes justice in the conversation. Positive peace is part of what I mean when I say “peacebuilding.” Sound bite 

​

There is no indication that structural violence is being addressed by the Environmental Peacebuilding Association. They don’t seem to be digging deeper into systemic issues of conflict beyond natural resource issues. This means that any direct, physical violence that they do help to end may not be a long-term solution if the underlying systemic issues of injustice are not addressed simultaneously.

 

It is also concerning that they don’t mention how they are working with the locals living in these post-war situations.  They note their priorities of working with researchers, practitioners, and decision-makers. Perhaps some of these people are locals within the specific contexts that the association is doing work, but centering local voices and knowledge is not explicitly stated as a core principle. Even if they did explicitly name their emphasis on centering local voices, there are still questions to be asked. Caroline Hughes, Joakim Öjendal & Isabell Schierenbeck explain in The Struggle versus the Song, “‘The local’ is a shorthand for those who are on the receiving end of applications of overwhelming concentrations of military might and economic resources, and whose voices are least likely to be heard.” This assumption of “the local” also implies that others are making decisions for them as if non-locals somehow know better. I am concerned that this is the perspective that the Environmental Peacebuilding Association takes toward locals. Are the researchers, practitioners, and decision makers that they note as core people in the Association taking local knowledge into account? Do they include local voices in the research process? Are locals included in more than just the “receiving end” of the work? If the answers to any of these questions are no, then that is a big problem. It can become another form of colonization, as I talked about above. 

​

There is also a noticeable lack of any intersectional analysis.

​

Sound bite. Intersectionality is a term that Patricia Hill Collins describes as “particular forms of intersecting oppressions.” Some examples of this include intersections of gender and race or of sexual orientation and class. Intersectionality helps us understand that there is not one type of oppression, and that different oppressions work together in producing injustice. It considers the many factors that are always at play in a person’s life that shape their experiences. For more on intersectionality, read Patricia Hill Collins’ books Black Feminist Thought or Intersectionality and Critical Social Theory.  Sound bite.

​

There is no mention of how different people are affected differently by a lack of access to natural resources. For example, how might a powerful and wealthy man experience life differently than a working-class woman? Or more pointedly, how might a working-class black woman experience life differently than a working-class white woman? This is an important piece to center within peacebuilding and justice work, especially if the hope is that the work will result in holistic and lasting change.

 

As Robin Wall Kimerrer notes in one of her writings, perhaps it is even problematic to use the words “natural resources.” In her native Potawatomi language, living beings (and some non-living) are all referred to as subjects, not objects. In other words, a bird or a flower is not referred to as an “it.” She recognizes that the Potowatami language, then, is perhaps threatening to the Western way of life - a way of life that says humans have rights, and the rest of the world is here to serve the purpose of humans. This line of thinking is evident in the descriptions provided on Environmental Peacebuilding Association’s website: They say, “Natural resources are one of a country’s most critical assets for peacebuilding. Land, forests, minerals, oil, water, and other resources are the foundations for rebuilding livelihoods and national economies.” This sounds a whole lot like they view any non-human beings as being in existence purely to aid human existence, namely economic gains.

 

So, to sum up, the Environmental Peacebuilding Association primarily does its work within quote-unquote post-war developing countries. They also support research efforts to learn more about the connections between natural resources and violent conflict. These are potentially valuable contributions; however, with their lack of addressing climate change, lack of a decolonial stance, lack of consideration of structural violence, and lack of intersectional considerations, the Environmental Peacebuilding Association leaves a lot to be desired.

 

Wow that was a lot. I’m sure there are beneficial things that the Environmental Peacebuilding Association can offer, but it is not quite as holistic as I’d hoped for from a peacebuilding organization. Fortunately, there are other groups out there that can help fill some of the gaps. One of the things I’ve learned in peacebuilding work is that no one can do everything, and we all have a place in this work. Stay tuned for the next episodes to hear from others who are involved in a few different organizations that are uniquely combining peace, justice, and planet care. I’ve learned a lot from those I’ve talked to and I’m very excited to share these learnings with you!

​

Music transition, fade out

 

Thank you all so much for listening to the first episode of Just a Peaceful Climate. My name is Nicole and I’m the host and editor of this podcast. All the music you hear in the episode is composed by Luke Mullet, who also graciously let me use his sound equipment. Huge thank you to the bees who are buzzing around all of our flowers! Stick around next week to hear from Tala, a representative of PeaceBuilders Community, Inc.

 

Music fade in