How Do Peace Agreements Treat Natural Resources?
Publisher: Forest Trade and Finance
Author(s): Arthur G. Blundell and Emily E. Harwell
Date: 2016
Topics: Governance, Livelihoods, Peace Agreements
Although there has been rich debate on causality and definition, there is growing consensus about the role natural resources play in fueling violent conflict in parts of the world where governance is weak and valuable resources are plentiful. The United Nations Environment Programme (2009) reckonsthat at least 40% of all civil warssince the end of the Cold War were associated with natural resources. For example: rebels fight for territory in order to control natural resources and associated revenues; warring parties in turn use this revenue to fuel further conflict; companies bribe corrupt politicians and bureaucrats for access to the resources; locals lose access to resource-based livelihoods or are displaced by land-grabbing; and the companies themselves get involved in arms-trafficking and use their security forces as private militias, which have committed human rights abuses against local communities (Harwell 2011).
Despite these documented patterns, our research finds that most ceasefire and peace agreements do not address natural resources in a meaningful way. Although Haysom and Kane (2009) state that “peace agreements often have explicit provisions allocating management and control [of natural resources] between national and provincial governments,” we found that of the more than 800 peace agreements since 1945, fewer than 15% address terms related to “natural resources,” and for most of the 10 accords that address the “management” of natural resources, implementation has been at best “minimal”. Moreover, there is no indication that this is changing - peace agreements are no more likely to address natural resources now than they were at the start of the Cold War.