Number of questions: [3]
 |
Posted on 16/02/2007 21:20:08 |
|
Of all the conflict damaged sites that you have dealt with, which do you consider will have the most serious long term envoronmental impacts.
|
|
Allen Schroeder (from Canada)
|
|
Dear Allen -
Thank you for your question. Our work tends to look at environmental impacts and risks to health, livelihoods and ecosystem services. However, it is difficult to generalize on the most serious long-term environmental impacts as they vary according to the ecological characteristics and population distribution of a particular country. In this regard, risks are highly dependent on rainfall patterns, soil geology, topography, land cover and land use.
In the 13 post-conflict countries we have worked in, the following long-term environmental issues were observed.
1. Chemical contamination of ground water used for drinking or irrigation
2. Disposal of hazardous waste and demolition debris created by the conflict
3. Impacts caused from the looting or liquidation of high-value natural resources (timber/diamonds/oil) during the conflict
4. Impacts caused from poor management of natural resources that undermine an ecosystem from delivering a basic good or service (deforestation/soil erosion)
5. Unmanaged use of natural resources during the post-conflict reconstruction period
If these risks are left unaddressed, they have the potential to cause both human displacement and economic instability which can undermine the peace process. In addition, some of these risks can increase the vulnerability of a region to a natural disaster thereby impacting any development gains and resetting the reconstruction clock to zero. For this reason, UNEP advocates the need to address them at the earliest possible stage in the post-conflict recovery process.
David Jensen
|
|
Posted on 16/02/2007 15:53:43 |
Dear Mr. Jensen,
Following the assessments, UNEP does a lot to try to identify partners to respond to the various needs that are highlighted in the assessment. In the chaos of a post-conflict society, though, the central government is often very weak. Staff have fled, infrastructure is devastated, and people are largely on their own. As a practical matter, how can (or should) the government project its authority beyond the capital? How do you reintroduce natural resource management and environmental governance into a post-conflict society?
Sincerely,
Carl Bruch
|
|
Carl Bruch (from United States of America)
|
|
Thank you for your questions.
You've identified one of the greatest challenges we face in post-conflict countries, especially in situations where we have a complete breakdown in the rule of law.
It is important to note that every post-conflict country represents a unique situation. There are no template approaches that apply everywhere and each case requires a tailor-made strategy. In this regard, UNEP is working in four areas to improve our understanding of how to decentralize natural resources management in post-conflict countries to both government and non-government actors:
1. Conflict analyses: We are developing and adopting a new methodology to analyze how natural resources contribute to or extend specific conflicts as well as how they can undermine or contribute to the peace building process. Within this method, we will be systematically conducting an “actors analyses” at the national and sub-national level to better understand the main management actors, users and potential spoilers.
2. Partnerships to identify best practice: We are hoping to work in close cooperation with a number of organizations, including IISD, ELI, IUCN and PRIO to identity examples of best and worst practice in natural resources management and rehabilitation in post-conflict countries. In addition, we would like to identify how natural resources management and rehabilitation can actually make substantive contributions to peace building and integrate these lessons within the overall UN system.
3. Implementation of pilot projects at the community level: In countries such as Afghanistan, UNEP is implementing up to 10 community-based natural resources management projects. Within these projects, UNEP is providing capital costs and technical assistance for environmental rehabilitation, while each community is responsible for designing, implementing and maintaining the required work. UNEP will collect and disseminate lessons from all ten projects in order to better understand critical success factors.
4. Peace Building Commission: UNEP is planning to provide technical inputs to the newly established Peace Building Commission to ensure our lessons learned are properly incorporated in to post-conflict peace building strategies.
In terms of demonstrating the value of natural resources management in post-conflict countries, UNEP tries to deliver a basket of institutional support combined with visible field projects. These projects aim to demonstrate the immediate value of natural resources management to human health and rural livelihoods. In most cases, we have found that communities already know very well how dependent they are on the environment. It isn’t through a lack of knowledge that has caused them to degrade their resource base, but rather a combination of poverty, population growth and the need to survive. Overcoming these factors continues to be a fundamental challenge and we look forward to contributing solutions to the global body of knowledge.
David Jensen
|
|
Posted on 16/02/2007 11:31:22 |
Dear Mr. Jensen,
What kind of environmental issues would you consider typical of any post-conflict situation?
I would also like to know if you encounter specific constraints, such as security related constraints.
Thank you.
|
|
Cynthia BOWOOD (from United States of America)
|
|
Dear Cynthia -
Thank you very much for your question. We tend to categorize the environmental impacts of conflict into direct and indirect. In this framework, some of the most common impacts are as follows:
a) Direct impacts
- contamination of the environment due to chemicals released from bomb damage to industrial sites and infrastructure
- contamination of the environment from weapons used during a conflict
- contamination of the environment from demolition waste and debris
- natural resources that are impacted by intentional targeting (sabotage) or by collateral damage
- natural resources that are impacted by military infrastructure or used to fund military activities
b) Indirect impacts
- environmental impacts caused by human displacement
- environmental impacts caused by sanctions
- environmental impacts caused by a breakdown of governance
- environmental impacts caused by humanitarian relief operations and reconstruction
- opportunity costs of conflict
Security conditions in post-conflict countries are a major concern and fundamentally impact our access to impacted sites. In some situations when security prevents access, we rely on the use of satellite images to obtain a preliminary understanding of the impacts and risks.
For additional information on the environmental impacts of conflict, please see the following article recently published by myself and my colleague Maliza van Eeden:
http://www.optimistmag.org/gb/0003/article.php?id=1609
For additional examples on the use of satellite imagery please see our recent report on Lebanon as well as our 2005 report on Assessing Environmental Hot Spots in Iraq:
http://postconflict.unep.ch/publications/UNEP_Lebanon.pdf
http://postconflict.unep.ch/publications/Iraq_ESA.pdf
To view an example of UNEP conducting an environmental assessment in the field, please download my amature documentary on our first mission to Afghanistan (note this product was self-produced and is not endorsed by UNEP):
http://www.sparetimeproductions.org/videos/videos_afghanistan.html
Thank you again for your question.
David Jensen
|
|
