This paper aims at critically discussing how natural resources can contribute both to conflict

as well as how they can contribute to post conflict peace building and recovery. The essay
starts by defining the major concepts. From there, it will critically discuss how natural
resources can lead to conflict, and how it can facilitate post conflict peace building and
recovery. And finally, a conclusion shall be drawn based on the discussions in the paper.
In this paper, we will go with the definition of conflict according to Coser and Fararo
(2001:67). They say conflict is a struggle over values and claims to scarce resources, status
and power in which the aim of the opponents is to neutralise, injure or eliminate their rival.
To this effect, contract is not only about physical fighting whether between or within parties
involved. On the other hand, we will use the understanding of Natural resources as brought
out by Mason et-al, (2008:14-15) who argue to say, Natural resources are materials or
substances such as minerals, forests, water, and fertile land that occur in nature and can be
used for economic gain.
There exists a clear causality between natural resources and conflict. This is because natural
resources in essence are the pillar for development in a given area. Therefore, using natural
resources by one faction of people so as to disadvantage other groups may lead to
misunderstandings among the people which may trigger conflict. Conflict is prone to occur
when natural resources are used as wealth-funding for armed non-state actors or to finance
dictatorial rentier states that are not accountable to their tax-payers [Mason et-al, 2008:21
quoting Munkler, (2003)].
This means that conflict may arise in an event that some people are losing out from the
resources they feel they own, as well as when another group or country is seen exploiting or
benefiting more from these resources. For example, the civil war that occurred between
Congo DR and, Rwanda and Uganda in 1998, where then President of Congo DR, Laurent
Kabila, accused the Rwandans and Ugandans that they were exploiting Congos natural
resource wealth. This led to war where Rwanda and Uganda fought Congo DR [Kok, Lotze
and Jaarsveld, (2009)].
Furthermore, natural resources as earlier alluded to are important in that they offer the
country an assurance of development in that they offer a variety of raw material to inject in
the production process. However, various studies conducted show that abundant of natural
resources in a country has a high probability of leading to conflicts. On such study is the one

done by Ross in 2002 titled Natural resources and civil war: an overview with some policy
options. From this study it came out that, relative natural resources in a country was found
to be one of the three main factors (together with economic decline and low per capita
income) that in combination increase the likelihood of conflicts [Mason et-al, 2008:21
quoting Ross (2002)]. This means because of abundance in natural resources, even within the
country or community conflicts may arise due to unequal sharing of benefits.
One of the natural resources that is more likely to contribute to conflict is land. Land is very
important and plays a crucial role in any form of development. For instance, majority of
people in LDCs depend on agriculture which wholly depends on land for production.
However, land may lead to conflict especially in an event that it is scarce. Leroy (2009:52)
argues to say, Land scarcity, exacerbated by inequitable distribution of land and high
population increase has also been described as one of the proximate causes of violence. For
example, one of the reasons for the civil war in Rwanda between the Hutus and the Tutsis
was land scarcity. Conflicts erupted within the intrastate among the Rwanda in cases where
many children from the same father fought for a small piece of land, [Kok, Lotze and
Jaarsveld, 2009].
Other natural resources that contribute to conflict are oil and minerals. Now oil is an
important natural resource that is generally used in most economic activities that enhance
peoples livelihoods. As such everyone wants to benefit whenever oil is produced. As a
result, oil can contribute to conflict in that any party that feels excluded when sharing
proceeds of oil will remain aggrieved. A good example here is Sudan, the conflict between
North and south Sudan. Although the North-South conflict begun well before oil reserves
were discovered in central Sudan, competition for ownership and shares in the countrys oil
and gas reserves was a driving force for the continuation of conflicts and were key issues in
the 2005 negotiations, [Kok, Lotze and Jaarsveld, 2008:32-33]. And this usually occurs
when the parties involved have different motives for the proceeds from such resources.
Still on this point, minerals as natural resources also contribute to conflict. Note that minerals
are very valuable assets with the ability of earning a country some foreign exchange which
can be used to develop a country. However, minerals tend to contribute to conflict as many
people even from outside a given country wish to benefit from them. These minerals are
valuable assets that many actors both local and international scene are always vying, and end
up initiating conflict or exacerbating protracted civil conflict for long periods of time (Ibid,
2

2008:22). For instance, Congo DR has been in and out of civil wars because of the precious
minerals it has. It is Congo DR that is host to minerals like Niobium, tungsten, coltan and
germanium which are highly need in the manufacture of hi-tech products like laptops, mobile
phones. As a result the extraction of coltan in North and South Kivu region has sparked
conflicts backed by international players (Opcit, 2008).
Apart from oil and minerals, water as a natural resource also contributes to conflict. Water
that is shared by countries on international borders tend to contribute to conflict. Note that
water is essential for day to day activities to sustain peoples livelihoods. When water exists
in small quantities, it leads to conflict as people start scrambling for it. Worse off when the
river is shared in a way that some use it first than others. Mason et-al (2009:24) argues to say,
water scarcity combined with shared water resources such as international rivers, may lead
to conflict between upstream and downstream users.
The truth is that it is not easy to draw a line of boundary in water between countries. This
makes water become a source of conflict. For instance, in activities like fishing, conflicts
have arisen as members of the other country are caught fishing on the other side of the river.
Even if the conflicts are minimal, we have a number of Zambians caught fishing on the
Congo DR side of Lake Mweru. Similar conflicts are usually reported among the pastoral
groups of Northern Kenya as a result of droughts and water scarcity [Todaro and Smith,
2011].
On the other hand, natural resources can also facilitate post-conflict peace building and
recovery. From the earlier discussion, it came out that natural resources like mineral
resources are of high value that if sold have the ability to earn huge revenue. Even if these
resources can lead to conflict, they can also play a role of raising revenue to rebuild the
destroyed infrastructure during the conflict (war). UNEP (2010:66) puts it this way, in a
post-conflict context, kick-starting the national economy is the key for poverty reduction and
peace building. In many cases, high-value natural resources are the fuel for the initial period
of economic recovery.
This means if proceeds from the resources are prudently utilised, there will be a general
improvement in the peoples incomes which later will help stabilise the economy, and this
will lead to a recovery of the nations economy. For instance, Sierra Leone has been using the

proceeds from minerals like cobalt, gold to resuscitate the economy. As of 2008, the
economy started showing progress growth rate of 5.5% annually (Ibid).
In addition to this, natural resources facilitate post-conflict peace building by them being used
as means of stopping violence or conflict. Using natural resources as a pre-requite for
stopping fighting can be successful provided they (natural resources) are incorporated in the
peace deal negotiations. Bruch et-al, (2009:63) says, natural resources can be incorporated
into the peace negotiation processes deal sweeteners in peace settlement agreements and as
confidence-building measures.
Natural resources in this regard act as a point of reference for resorting to peace. A good
example here is Congo DR from which one of the peace deals which was signed in February
2009, was premised on the rebels having a share in the mineral rights in the North and South
Kivu regions (Kok, Lotze and Jaarsveld, 2009). This restored peace, and has contributed to
the development of the region as the proceeds from the mineral resources have been
channelled to the development process of the nation.
The other thing is that natural resources provide livelihood opportunities like land. Note that
conflict will lead to disturbances in the livelihood strategies that people depend on for
survival. And so proper natural resource management offer these people grounds upon which
they can quickly manage again to sustain themselves. Natural resources enable the provision
of livelihood opportunities, as in many post-conflict countries agricultural land and other
natural resources provide the primary source of income for the vast majority of the
population [Bruch et-al, 2009:60]. Most LDC people depend on agriculture for their
survival. Therefore, natural resources in form of land become the surest way a country can
recover from a conflict or war in that people are enabled to secure food through producing
crops on the land, and when people are not hungry there are rare cases of conflicts.
Apart from this, natural resources can play a big role in building peace after conflict by
reconciling the aggrieved parties. As part of the reconciliation and recovery process,
environment and natural resources can provide opportunities for divided parties to make joint
decision for a common future [UNEP, 2010:66]. Natural resources becomes the medium
through which a consensus to end conflict can be reached. For instance, oil reserves (a natural
resource) became the means through which North and South Sudan reconciled and put a halt
to conflict.

Still on the same point, even prior to peace deals, if natural resources are properly managed,
they have the ability to bring about peace. This ability is not limited to high-value resources
like timber and minerals. For instance, in Papua New Guinea copper as high value natural
resource facilitated peace negotiations between the rebels and the government forces. Copper
became the means through which peace came to be strengthened. Bruch et-al (2009:60) add
on saying, Natural resource management plays a pivotal role in the transition of post-conflict
societies towards a lasting peace.
Post-conflict peace building involves interplay of processes with them emphasising on the
provision of food, shelter and clothing to people, that is basic needs. In a way this implies
availing basic needs to people soon after war is pre-requite to peace. All these as well as
disarming weapons are only possible where the natural resources are available and properly
managed. Natural resource management for peace include: preventing a return to conflict,
meeting the basic needs for life (water, food, shelter and livelihoods), decommissioning
armed forces, and strengthening governance and justice (Ibid). For instance, disarming of
the land mines in Angola was done with the understanding that land was needed for purposes
like agriculture. And so land in this case contributed to rebuilding of Angola through giving
the local people livelihoods or survival strategies like farming. In this way, we can say that
natural resources as well as proper management of it, has led to recovery of the Angolan
economy.
In conclusion, from the discussion above, it came out that conflict is a struggle over values
and claims to scarce resources, status and power in which the aim of the opponents is to
neutralise, injure or eliminate their rival while on the other hand, Natural resources are
materials or substances such as minerals, forests, water, and fertile land that occur in nature
and can be used for economic gain. It has also come out that natural resources can contribute
to conflict when; natural resources are used as wealth-funding, a group of people feel they are
not benefiting as they ought to from the natural resources, natural resources are few
compared to the number of people wishing to benefit etc.
Furthermore, the paper also showed that natural resources facilitate post-conflict peace
building through; incorporating them in peace deals as sweetener in peace negotiations,
offering opportunities for livelihoods, acting as mediums for reconciling the aggrieved parties
etc. In a nutshell, there is a link between the environment (natural resources) and conflict.