Search

Conflicts are increasingly analysed as exhibiting a stealth complexity in which triggers and consequences are intricately linked to climate, environmental degradation and the struggle to control a finite pool of natural resources. The climate crisis is a multifaceted reality and, against this background, many pressing priorities compete with each other. The disruptive effect of climate variability and change on food systems is particularly acute and constitutes a direct and tangible threat to livelihoods globally. The objective of this paper is to demonstrate and discuss the importance of food systems under a climate crisis in exacerbating conflicts in the Sahelian region and propose interventions beyond and complementary to the usual military and security solutions. We demonstrate for the Sahel that (i) climate hazards are frequent and exposure to climate variability is high, (ii) hotspots of high climate variability and conflict exist, and (iii) impact pathways by which climate exacerbates food systems that can lead to conflicts are documented in the literature. While these three findings suggest clear links between conflict and climate, we find that (iv) current peace indices do not include climate and food systems indicators and therefore provide an uncomplete picture, and (v) food systems programming for climate adaptation has so far not explicitly considered peace and security outcomes. Furthermore, we propose that food systems programming that truly tackles the climate crisis should take more explicit account of peace and security outcomes in conflict-affected areas.

This chapter is concerned with dialogue-based post-conflict practices currently being promoted vigorously by certain international organizations. On the one hand, there is "transitional justice" with its cornerstone forums, deemed truth and reconciliation commissions. On the other hand, there are various "bottom-up" peacebuilding techniques (local dialogues, coexistence programs, conflict resolution training, and so on). Generally speaking, these "bottom-up" approaches work to transform individual prejudices and emphasize relations amongst "ordinary people". The shared objective of these practices is to construct peace that proves more "sustainable" than the usual international peacemaking and peacebuilding policies that focus upon political elites and institutional reform. I seek to demonstrate that it is through sociological analysis of the people and organizations promoting these approaches, rather than a strict evaluation of the programs' efficacy, that can reveal certain surprising characteristics of the groups involved. These groups are quite specific and diverse: religious evangelical and Anabaptist groups, activist groups fighting for peacebuilding via education, and professionals from realms such as para-judiciary conflict resolution and individual therapy. I also aim to show that in exploring these programs' origins, it becomes possible to unveil one of their singular traits: an underlying individualist, relationist conception of social functioning and change. The individual becomes the only true agent of peace; a peace that is supposed to become a shared culture thanks to a gradual social diffusion, starting with the select few who are immediately connected with the international programs in question. Two non-governmental organizations will here bear witness to the usage of techniques borrowed directly from individual therapy practices. Finally, I point to the link between 'bottom-up' approaches and the more institutional forms of peacebuilding. I argue that "transitional justice" is grounded in this conception of peace via the individual, and that, ultimately, this works to de-politicize peacebuilding processes.