Many recurring problems in natural resource management are the result of missing a key point: ecosystems and human systems are inextricably linked and dynamic, changing constantly. We are part of a socio-ecological system, not external to it, as many previously thought. In the “age of man” – the Anthropocene, as some scientists call the current era – cross-sectoral collaboration is needed to make substantial headway in tackling complex challenges, such as natural resource-related conflict and climate change.

With that in mind, an extraordinary thing happened a few weeks ago at the Wilson Center. USAID’s Office of Conflict Management and Mitigation brought together all of its partners working on natural resources, conflict, and peacebuilding in one room. All told, nearly a dozen organizations, including Ohio University and ECSP, attended a two-day workshop with the aim of sharing experiences, data, and lessons learned from working on the same set of issues from different perspectives.

The Researcher-Practitioner Divide

Participants worked to strengthen an already wide-ranging network that included environmental conflict and peacebuilding scholars, policymakers, and practitioners. The ground covered by projects represented was wide, from how climate-related vulnerabilities interact with instability in Africa and Latin America to the relationship between resilience and peacebuilding in the Horn of Africa, and the probability of civil conflicts in riparian states in Southeast Asia.

There were also those who focus across sectors. ECSP, for instance, explores the nexus of climate change, natural resources, conflict, and peacebuilding and showcases practical and innovative research, best practices, and lessons learned for the wider development community.

Discussions on the interplay between natural resource management and conflict prevention provided participants with a platform to reflect on existing and emerging trends. For example, “resilience” emerged as a concept that many believed could be useful. But further research on the effectiveness of the framework is essential, especially with regards to its applicability to environmental peacebuilding.

ECSP’s Roger-Mark De Souza pointed out core questions that need to be answered: Resilience by whom? Resilience to what? And resilience by what means? Ohio University’s Geoff Dabelko added, how do we ask specific questions about resilience that apply the concept at multiple scales, given the challenges associated with natural resource management and climate and conflict? These are not easily answered, and many agreed there is a need to further develop the concept, starting with a working definition.

In general, participants identified many points of potential collaboration that were otherwise hidden, with the work of researchers often seeming to be disconnected from that of development practitioners “in the field.” This disparity was viewed as a major hindrance to advancement of a common cause – finding ways to prevent environmental conflict and create peace and stability.

For example, “at a community level, is social cohesion or network the linchpin to adapt to shocks?” asked Mercy Corps’ John Kurtz. “What do we do as a humanitarian community to influence it? … What approaches to [natural resource management] demonstrate how to do this well and which ones make a difference in times of shock or stress?”

But while the schism between academic work and on-the-ground application may be a problem, it could also present an opportunity for fruitful collaboration – between academia, filling knowledge gaps through more rigorous research, and development practitioners, responding more effectively based on that knowledge.

Build Communities, Open Up Communication

Along with specific research and partnership opportunities, a broad set of ideas emerged from the partners about how to move forward with natural resource, conflict, and development work.

Some suggested, after identifying a community of interest around a topic (e.g. water and conflict), it would be helpful to build online portals that provide entries to communication and collaboration and help reduce redundancies from project to project. These could be built using accessible platforms, like Google Maps, and include geocoded information, summaries of relevant research, links to study findings, and the contact information of lead researchers.

In the monitoring and evaluation space, the participants suggested moving beyond single dimension evaluations to ways of measuring success that better acknowledge complexity and give more freedom to how projects are implemented and judged (e.g. desired outcomes versus actual outcomes). Universal definitions that are applicable both to policy formulation and in the field would be a practical first step to increase efficiency, said Erika Weinthal of Duke University. This process of harmonizing terminology should include organizations that do programming (funders and donors) all over the world, not just in the United States.

Communicating best practices also emerged as an important imperative. More informal experience sharing can open up a wealth of knowledge from other project developers, the participants urged, and also aid communication between formal and informal institutions and other sectors of development. And not just successes; sharing programmatic failures, including practical advice and lessons learned, can help others avoid the same pitfalls and build on success.

Closely related to sharing best practices and learning from failures, is the idea of “do no harm” – trying to foresee any negative unintended consequences of your actions. ECSP produced a study about this idea in relation to climate change adaptation and mitigation. Efforts to prepare for or prevent climate change should be carefully scrutinized to avoid “backdraft” that could increase the potential for conflict or instability, especially in already-fragile areas of the world.

Can Collaboration Be Incentivized?

Bridging the gap between development practitioners and academic researchers continually reemerged as a critical overall message. In many ways, bringing these two communities together was the most successful result of the workshop. Only in a space where learning from one another is promoted over simply recounting results can true progress be made toward more successful environmental peacebuilding projects and other integrated development efforts.

Redirecting focus from sectoral to cross-sectoral cooperation and collaboration – by modifying incentive structures or other means – will help ensure better understanding of complex systems and challenges, the kind of thinking needed to thrive in the Anthropocene.