Putting the spotlight on local communities

04 Dec 2015
toegevoegd door

Understanding resource conflicts

The CoCooN research programme produced 68 academic articles and many other publications, such as policy briefs and case studies. What have they contributed to our understanding of conflicts around the extraction of natural resources in developing countries? Now that the CoCooN programme has nearly finished, it is time to draw some conclusions and lessons learnt.

The CoCooN Conference held in The Hague on 25 to 27 November 2015 revealed what the six research projects in fourteen countries tell us about conflict and cooperation. The GOMIAM research project on small-scale gold mining in the Amazon, for example, has shown that distrust between governments and miners is an important obstacle to better policies and practices. ‘Small-scale gold mining in the Amazon region not only threatens the livelihoods of indigenous peoples and local communities,’ explained project coordinator Marjo de Theije, ‘it is also a conflict of interests between many actors, like timber firms and coca farmers, and haphazard responses by governments.’

CoCooN Conference 27112015-237This project was the first to look at the conflicts from a regional and multidisciplinary perspective. De Theije: ‘Conflicts can only be solved or mitigated if environmental aspects like deforestation and mercury pollution of watersheds are related to socio-economic aspects and include the legal and institutional context.’ For example, reducing mercury pollution is not just a case of enforcing a law; success depends on having a strategy to reach out to the small-scale miners based on understanding how mining practices are passed on by family members or colleagues. This should be taken into account when offering alternative techniques. A regional approach is also necessary because of the transnational mobility of small-scale miners. This was clearly demonstrated when a strict policy in French Guyana led to in an upsurge of mining activity just over the border in Suriname.

The research findings indicate that policies that make small-scale mining practices illegal and back violent campaigns of enforcement have failed to achieve their primary goal of curbing the expansion of mining and have fuelled further conflicts. Alexandra Uran Carmona from the University of Antioquia, in Medellín Colombia: ‘It is worthwhile questioning the effectiveness of violence and legislation as a means of dealing with illegal mining in the Amazon. Formalisation is better because it is about how to organise communities. Installing cooperatives and establishing Fair Trade schemes is one way forward.’ Conflicts can be reduced if local communities and miners participate in decision-making processes and policy formulation.

A recurring theme in all CoCooN projects is continued mistrust between indigenous communities and governments. In Ghana and Ethiopia the Jatropha project looked at the conflicts arising from the boom and bust of Jatropha production. ‘Many communities lost their land because the Ghanaian government paid no attention to the impacts that large foreign investments in Jatropha production in the region were having on food security, rural development and sustainability,’ explained Emmanuel Acheampong of the Kwame Nkrumah University in Ghana. ‘In the end Jatropha was not the holy grail it was made out to be and foreign investors stopped production. It was a hype based on weak evidence that Jatropha was productive enough to become a strong international commodity.’ In the end, small farmers not only lost their land, but there was no economic activity left in the region either.
GOMIAM - Illegal Mining. Mineros ilegales Madre de Deus_PeruGroundwater in the Political Domain (GPD)Reincorpfish_ credits joeri scholtens2

Bottom-up approaches

The Jatropha project proves that local conflicts are often the result of international dynamics: findings show that governments should be more critical of foreign investors, the main issue being the ownership of land and lack of land governance. Whereas in Ethiopia the central government could regain the land after foreign investors lost interest, in Ghana land remained in the hands of the foreign investors because local chiefs were responsible for the concessions and not the state. Acheampong: ‘This research shows that we have to be careful with hypes. International investors may go for them without taking into account the interests of local communities.’ Other CoCooN projects mention the empowerment and participation of local communities for getting their voice across and starting dialogues to increase mutual trust as well:

  • The Reincorporating Small-Scale Fishers in Governance (REINCORPFISH) project in South Africa and South Asia shows that in South Africa progress with developing and implementing a new fisheries policy was made with the participation of local fisher communities.
  • The Lands and Rights in Troubled Waters (LAR) project in Brazil and Colombia revealed that crimes against marginalized populations – who lack political and economic power and access to justice and law enforcement institution – remain unnoticed and invisible in the formal economic and governmental systems. It also concludes that the Round Table on Responsible Soy agreement is not being implemented properly as deforestation for soy plantations is still widespread.
  • The Nationalisation and State Activism in the Extractive Industries (NEBE) project in Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru shows that activist governments that are more rooted in political movements and grassroots organisations also have to improve collaboration with local communities and social organizations to bring about a sustainable and inclusive management of natural resources.
  • The Groundwater in the Political Domain (GPD) project in Ethiopia, the Palestinian Territories and Yemen shows that groundwater is a very local resource, but that access to and management of groundwater in these countries is regulated centrally. ‘Political agendas are the main obstacle to local communities increasing their access to and managing local groundwater sources,’ explained researcher Frank van Steenbergen of MetaMeta. ‘It leaves little space for local entrepreneurial initiatives or regulation of groundwater use.’

CoCooN Conference - project coordinators

Generic analysis

Looking at all the case studies of the six research projects in the CoCooN programme leads to the conclusion that conflicts related to natural resources occur when structural inequalities coincide with imbalances of power over access to and use of water, land, timber and minerals. Although the drivers of conflicts are different in each case – such as large-scale versus small-scale, local versus international or private versus public actors – when conflicts arise it is deprived local communities that suffer the most. Other conclusions are that local communities should be seen as essential partners in monitoring and evidence-gathering, and that a power analysis from local to the global is essential. To fully understand resource conflicts it is important that the conclusions from the CoCooN projects are translated into a more generic analysis and recommendations – while not losing sight of the daily struggles of local communities in resource-conflict zones and the peculiarities of each case.

Blog written by Evert-Jan Quak of The Broker



  • 05 Dec 2015

    at 15:07 Clive Montgomery Wicks, Conservation and Development Consultant on Impact of Oil,Gas, Mining and Biofuel Projects wrote

    It is important to mention that there are many flaws in the current model for planning used in many countries. On the one hand most planning for oil, gas, fishing, biofuel and land use is done by individual organisations or companies. Generally they use Environmental and Social Impact Assessments (ESIAs). The problem with these is that they are done by the very people who want to justify their projects. They don’t look at the cumulative impacts of a number of oil projects etc. or the carrying capacity of the environment. For example rivers can only carry a limited amount of pollution. The World Bank , the European Commission and a number of other organisations have warned frequently about the risks in not getting an overview of the whole situation prior to letting individual companies getting involved. They recommend that if a country is considering allowing oil and gas or mining projects, fisheries, biofuel projects to take place that Government with support from Donors such as the World Bank, UN Agencies, EC etc. should carry out a independent “Strategic Environmental Assessment” (SEA). This looks at the current situation in an area key habitats such as fish breeding grounds, fish migratory routes, current use of land, water and marine resources. A good example of this was the Norwegian Government SEA of the Barent Sea which helped them to decide which areas they might allow oil companies to operate in. SEAs can also be used to help with country planning. During the discussions on this on biofuels in Ghana and Ethiopia during the CoCooN Conference Jan Joost Kessler pointed out that ten SEAs had been carried out in Ghana but they were ignored because the Ghanaian law did not recognise them. It only recognised ESIAs. One advantage of doing SEAs is that a high level committee has to be set up involving all concerned Ministries to supervise the development of the SEA . That avoids problems such as those that I am working on in the Philippines where the Minister for Mines can decide to allow a mine to proceed without any authority from the Minister of Agriculture or even against other Ministers objections. In the case of the proposed Massive Tampakan Mine six rivers will be affected by AMD (acid mine drainage) and water polluted with high level of arsenic. Hundreds of thousands of rice farmers and fish farmers will end up having their crops and fish stocks destroyed.

    Clive Montgomery Wicks – Conservation and Development Consultant on Impact of Oil,Gas, Mining and Biofuel Project


  • 07 Dec 2015

    at 11:29 Andrew Leslie, Research and Evidence Division's Climate, Energy & Water Team at the UK Department for International Development wrote

    I am no means an expert of Research Into Use or Research Uptake but from a Results perspective I would have hoped to have seen more evidence. This article is very descriptive of what activities have taken place but I see no concluding verdict. I understand that the “Theory of Change” is being used and I have a personal preference for emphasising the logframe as it easy for a “lay” person to see timeframes against indicator and milestones and thus results. I see the “Theory of Change” as being High Level and Academically Theoretical if that makes sense. Trying to explain a Theory of Change to a “lay” person and sometimes policymakers or influences can be a challenge. A “lay” person is someone who is an ordinary person from society with no academic connection to this subject. Is there evidence of synthesising policies that came from CoCooN that is now being used by target governments – this would be a great result for me. This article mentions awareness, but does this translate to effectiveness? The CoCooN Programme is not effectively finished as we still have the CCMCC project with a few years to go. Did we see evidence of CoCooN feeding into CCMCC – did we see concrete evidence of lessons learnt. Can we highlight the “Results Chain” i.e. Activities, Change, Benefits, Policies\Replication.

    Andrew Leslie, Research and Evidence Division’s Climate, Energy & Water Team at the UK Department for International Development (DFID)


  • 07 Dec 2015

    at 14:13 Marjo de Theije, coordinator GOMIAM-project, CEDLA wrote

    All six CoCooN projects use the comparison of different cases to produce insights and conclusions that go beyond the strictly local or specific features of one case under research. Comparing the results from the six projects creates impressive evidence for the weight of structural inequality in the competition over natural resources on a planetary scale. We still want to reflect on the methodological consequences of comparison and how we can have impact on decision makers and others using the huge reserve of evidence we constructed in the past five years. For example, the use of violence and repression by the state always leads to more distrust and difficulty to limit conflicts over natural resources and access to the resources. Involving local communities in conflict resolution and monitoring are much more promising indeed.

    Marjo de Theije, coordinator GOMIAM-project, CEDLA


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be shown.