Forests and Violent Conflict: CIFOR research shows how forest-related conflicts can be averted

Better management of the world's forests can reduce conflict and avoid war is the principal message of a chapter by David Kaimowitz, Director General, CIFOR, published in FAO's flagship State of the World's Forests 2005 report.

The report, part of an annual series, examines a number of key forest issues, including the current condition of the world's forest resources, offering solutions for conservation and sustainable use of forest resources.

Over the last 20 years forested areas have been a staging ground for wars in some two dozen countries that are home to over 40 percent of the world's tropical forests. Just a few of these include the Côte d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, India, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines and Uganda. Understanding the links between forests and conflict is important in addressing global poverty, especially since millions of the world's rural poor are adversely affected by violence and wars related to forest resources.

According to Kaimowitz, governments can reduce forest-related conflict by involving local ethnic groups in the political system, providing them with basic services and recognizing their rights over forest resources. Internationally, policies to prevent forest-related conflict could include sanctions that block armed groups from using timber exports to finance their operations.

Research shows that the role of forests varies from war to war. In Mindanao, Philippines, separatist movements successfully tapped into the political disenfranchisement of forest dwellers.

Local discontent over forest issues has also been a factor in past conflicts in Myanmar and Nicaragua. Sometimes forests also help prolong war. For example, the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia was heavily dependent on timber sales. In Colombia's forests, cultivating cocaine has helped fund anti-government militias.

Kaimowitz says that while forest-related conflict is almost always terrible for people, sometimes it can be good for the environment.

“No one is saying 'Let's start a war so we can save the forest'. But forests may fare better during war than during peace. For example, the presence of land mines or the risk of being kidnapped will discourage logging and other forest-depleting activities,” Kaimowitz says. Ironically, the arrival of peace can be destructive for forests. Post-war economic recovery initiatives can lead to excessive logging and the resettlement of demobilized soldiers and refugees who are likely to take up unsustainable farming practices. The research recommends investing heavily in forested areas during post-conflict periods to prevent renewed fighting and help protect the forest itself.

The link between the environment and violence is attracting increasing attention worldwide. When the 2004 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Wangari Maathai for her work with the “Green Belt Movement,” it heightened international awareness of how deforestation contributes to instability in Africa.

“State of the World's Forests 2005” is available at www.fao.org/forestry/index.jsp