Restoring land, restoring peace: How sustainable land management can ease global conflicts

Sustainable Land Management (SLM) practices and investments in nature-based solutions (NbS) at the community level can help resolve conflicts and restore social cohesion, according to the Ground for Peace: Land Restoration for International Peace and Security report released in December 2024.

The report emphasised that restoring land resources is essential not only for addressing desertification, ecosystem loss and climate change but also for fostering global peace. Based on research reviews, case studies, semi-structured interviews and workshops, the report concluded that regional and global conflicts among communities cascade, transcending borders due to increasing pressure on already degrading resources.

“In a few decades, the relationship between the environment, resources and conflict may seem almost as obvious as the connection we see today between human rights, democracy, and peace,” stated the report, quoting 2004 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate and Kenyan environmentalist Wangari Maathai.

The Peace Forest Initiative (PFI), launched by the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) at its 14th Conference of Parties in 2019 in New Delhi, aims to implement SLM practices to ease intercommunity tensions, restore trust and ensure food security. Signed by UNCCD and the Korea Forest Service, PFI has identified 17 sites across 44 countries for implementation. UNCCD provides technical support and funding to achieve land degradation neutrality targets.

Conflicts and insecurity degrade land by destroying forests, croplands and pastures, while land degradation, in turn, fuels further conflict, the report highlighted. Countries such as Syria, Iraq and Iran have faced prolonged wars, resulting in environmental degradation and mass displacement. Climate change exacerbates these challenges.

Migration affects vulnerable communities, altering land use and rights. Displaced populations often resort to unsustainable survival practices, further degrading land.

The report cited the example of a million Rohingya refugees who migrated from Myanmar to southeast Bangladesh. It witnessed a loss of half of its forest area from 8,500 hectares to 4,500 hectares between 2016 and 2018 due to increased demand for firewood and timber, further weakening an already fragile ecosystem. Studies indicate that around 80 per cent of conflicts between 1950 and 2000 occurred in biodiversity hotspots.

Despite these clear linkages, land degradation has not been widely recognised as a standalone security issue. The report noted that “sustainable development goals and the Rio Convention address these issues in silos”, limiting their effectiveness. However, initiatives such as the Convention on Biological Diversity’s knowledge-sharing efforts, the COP28 Declaration on Relief, Recovery, and Peace, and NATO’s 2023 Climate Change and Security Impact Assessment signal growing recognition of the connection between environmental sustainability and peace.

Integrating restoration with peacebuilding

The report underscored that co-managing natural resources can reduce tensions and enhance stability. However, most studies lack insight into how land restoration contributes to peace. Alongside actions taken, interventions should be situation-specific and may have different outcomes depending on the regional context and conflict dynamics.

In early conflict stages, prevention is key, whereas ongoing conflicts may require restoration efforts as entry points for dialogue. Post-conflict interventions can support socio-economic development.

For instance, in Nigeria, the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue facilitated a peace agreement between Tiv and Igede ethnic groups over resource-sharing, enabling government engagement, market access, and boundary resolution. The peace agreement paved the way for government interaction, opening of markets, and sorting of boundary issues, the report noted. In Colombia, peace agreements accelerated land restoration and strengthened community cohesion among cocoa farmers.

The report advocated for integrating restoration with peace and security efforts from the outset. While SLM can serve as a foundation for conflict management, other interventions — such as climate-sensitive policies, job creation, ecosystem restoration, and biodiversity conservation — are also necessary. SLM can be the inception point for interventions to address conflict management, but a climate-sensitive approach, creation of livelihoods and jobs, ecosystem and land restoration, and protection of endangered species should also be considered.

Challenges and need for funding

Despite its potential, land restoration can sometimes exacerbate conflicts if poorly planned. Vipul Singh, professor of Environmental History at the University of Delhi, cited the example of India’s Banni grasslands, where afforestation efforts introduced Prosopis juliflora, an invasive species that disrupted pastoralist livelihoods. “We have many such examples of unplanned projects in India — later attracting non-cooperation from the communities,” he explained.

Similarly, in Odisha’s Chilika Lake, ecological restoration projects led to increased salinity levels, benefiting commercial fisheries but displacing traditional freshwater fishers and prawn cultivators, triggering socio-economic distress.

A major barrier to scaling up restoration efforts is funding. The report stated that 40 per cent of intrastate conflicts are due to natural resources, but less than 10 per cent of global funding addresses land issues. Most private funding is directed towards biodiversity hotspots due to regulatory mandates, the authors added. Institutional barriers — such as complex funding procedures and limited capacity to manage large-scale investments — further hinder progress.

The authors of the report recommended tapping into existing funding streams, including climate funds and donor organisations, to ensure sustainable restoration efforts. Short- and long-term funding for implementing nature-based systems at the local level, including grants and concessional finance, is suggested.

Scaling up these initiatives requires political support, leveraging the UN Decade of Ecosystem Restoration and the World Decade of Afforestation and Reforestation, the authors noted. The need to realise technical diplomacy and the importance of international agreements is crucial in addressing land degradation as a driver of conflict and instability, they stressed in the report.