By Janpeter Schilling, Christina Saulich and Nina Engwicht

In a current special issue of the journal Conflict, Security and Development, we explore the question of how global and local dynamics of resource management and resource conflicts are interdependent.

How do global processes, such as the demand for valuable primary raw materials and the certification of value chains, influence resource and conflict dynamics at the local level of affected societies, and vice versa? To answer this question, we have published a special issue in the journal Conflict, Security and Development that develops a local-global perspective to examine resource management and conflict.

The perspective we propose is based on a review of the literature on the resource curse, environmental security and large-scale land grabbing. All three approaches have limited explanatory power with respect to conflict dynamics at the local level. The local-global perspective that we develop in this special issue and apply to various case studies therefore begins with an analysis of the relevant actors in resource governance and resource conflicts at the local level and then turns to the national, international and global levels (see figure below).

Specifically, the perspective and the associated analytical framework first look at the central dimensions and actors - including their motivations and capabilities - of resource governance and conflict at the local level. This reveals differences, overlaps and interdependencies between governance and conflict actors. These often appear simultaneously in several roles with diverging interests - for example as conflict actors and state representatives.

In a second step, we extend our focus vertically to relevant actors and processes beyond the local level. This enables us to examine and understand the relationships between actors from the local to the global level. Specifically, we work out how resource and conflict dynamics at the local level influence processes and actors at the sub-national level (e.g. county government), at the national level (e.g. central government, domestic companies, national non-governmental organizations), at the international level (e.g. headquarters of international companies, international donors, intergovernmental organizations) and at the global level (e.g. climate change, global resource demand, international regulatory mechanisms).

In a final step, we look at how processes at the global, international and national levels affect local conflict and resource dynamics. This dual analysis from local to global and global to local is beneficial for the development of conflict mitigation strategies.

What does this perspective mean in practice? The special issue contains five articles that apply the analytical framework described to case studies in sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America and Southeast Asia. These highlight two key findings.

First, international and national companies often work hand in hand with national governments to extract resources. At the local level, often only the social and economic elites benefit, while the majority of the local population has little opportunity to influence the use of resources. They remain largely excluded from profits and are exposed to the negative effects of resource extraction.

In Cambodia, for example, a European company founded a large rubber plantation. The corresponding concession was granted to the investor by the central government. The protests of local communities were unable to prevent the subsequent expropriation processes. This was also due to the lack of social cohesion after years of civil war and displacement, which would have enabled the local population to confront the company and the central government decisively and effectively.

In Ethiopia, the central government declared land used by pastoralists in the Maji region as "uninhabited" and invited investors to lease the land on a large scale. This led to violent conflicts between government forces and cattle herders. In north-western Kenya, the conflicts between oil companies and local communities are caused less by the resource of land and more by the lack of employment opportunities in the oil sector. As a result, the local population feels excluded from the profits of resource extraction.

In both Ethiopia and Kenya, the rather new conflict dynamics overlap with existing violent conflicts between pastoralist groups. When the companies invaded their territory, the local groups used the skills they had developed in previous conflicts (experience, labor, weapons, attack tactics) to oppose the investors. In Kenya, for example, community members blocked access roads to oil production facilities, demanding that the company increase the share of local employment.

The second finding suggests that global commodity certification schemes often impact local communities in ambivalent ways. In Costa Rica, the global Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) program could potentially increase the potential for conflict between actors who want to conserve forests for climate change mitigation and communities who need forests for their livelihoods. On the other hand, REDD+ offers indigenous peoples a platform to enter into dialog with the national government.

In Sierra Leone, a global diamond certification scheme was only partially implemented as local norms, customs and power relations prevented genuine institutional change. However, the certification system has helped to reduce harassment, extortion and violence against illegal small-scale miners and traders.

These examples show that analyzing local resource and conflict dynamics is essential to understanding how global demands for resources, such as land and oil, and global certification schemes for forests and diamonds can affect the local level - and vice versa. On this basis, it is possible for organizations and governments to develop sustainable and realistic strategies for conflict prevention and management. The freely available special edition describes what these can look like.