Is Peace Enough? Why Sustainability Requires More Than Stability – New Security Beat

Report on the Interlinkage Between Peace, Security, and the Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary: A Critical Analysis of the Peace-Sustainability Nexus

A comprehensive review of the relationship between global peace and environmental sustainability reveals a complex and often counterintuitive dynamic. Amidst a global increase in conflict and environmental degradation, recent findings challenge the assumption that peace and sustainability are mutually reinforcing. This report analyzes this relationship, with a significant focus on its implications for achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) and its interplay with environmental goals.

Key Findings: The Paradox of Peace and Unsustainable Consumption

The investigation into the correlation between peace and ecological sustainability, measured by carbon emissions, ecological footprint, and material footprint, yields critical insights that diverge from previous research.

Contradictory Trends in National Profiles

• The most peaceful nations, characterized by internal stability and strong institutions as per SDG 16, frequently demonstrate the most unsustainable environmental practices.
• These countries often have the largest ecological footprints, indicating a failure to align with SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) and SDG 13 (Climate Action).
• A nation’s ecological vulnerability and the nature of its conflicts (internal versus external) are strongly linked to its overall resource consumption patterns.
• Discrepancies in findings often stem from the metrics used for sustainability—whether focusing on national production or national consumption. This measurement challenge mirrors difficulties in accurately tracking progress across the entire 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Case Study Analysis: Divergent National Pathways

An examination of three distinct national profiles illustrates the complex relationship between peace and ecological impact, highlighting challenges and opportunities for the integrated pursuit of the SDGs.

1. The United States and Switzerland: Peace at an Environmental Cost

   Both nations exemplify high levels of internal peace and institutional stability, aligning with the objectives of SDG 16. However, their large environmental footprints, driven by high per capita consumption of energy and materials, run counter to the principles of SDG 12 and SDG 13. Their status demonstrates that achieving domestic peace does not inherently lead to global environmental responsibility.

2. The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC): Sustainability Amidst Instability

   The DRC presents a contrasting scenario. Despite significant internal conflict that undermines progress on SDG 16, the nation operates well within global sustainability thresholds for its ecological and material footprints. This case highlights a profound disconnect, where environmental sustainability coexists with deep societal instability.

3. Costa Rica: An Integrated Model for Success

   Costa Rica serves as a powerful counterexample, demonstrating that peace and sustainability can be pursued in tandem. The country has achieved the following:

   • Near-attainment of ecological sustainability across key metrics, advancing SDG 12 and SDG 13.
   • Absence from domestic or international conflict, supported by its lack of a standing military.
   • A high ranking on the Positive Peace Index, indicating a successful implementation of the principles within SDG 16.

Strategic Implications for the 2030 Agenda

Rethinking Development for a Sustainable Future

The findings necessitate a re-evaluation of traditional development models, which have often achieved peace and economic growth (SDG 8) at a significant environmental cost. Historical pathways to stability that rely on resource-intensive growth are incompatible with the long-term vision of the SDGs.

• The pursuit of SDG 16 must be holistically integrated with environmental stewardship goals, including SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy), SDG 12, and SDG 13, to avoid creating negative trade-offs.
• External military conflicts, often pursued by internally peaceful nations, demand vast resources and energy, contributing significantly to global ecological strain and undermining collective progress on the SDGs.
• A successful path forward requires a comprehensive framework that measures both peace and sustainability in a cohesive manner, preventing policies that advance one goal at the expense of another. This approach embodies the spirit of SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  This goal is central to the article, which directly investigates the complex relationship between peace and environmental sustainability. It discusses various forms of conflict, including “internal conflict,” “military operations abroad,” and the “number of global conflicts.” It also measures peace using the “Global Peace Index” and the “Positive Peace Index,” the latter of which reflects “strong institutions and a stable society,” key components of SDG 16.

• SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

  The article heavily emphasizes consumption patterns as a measure of sustainability. It explicitly mentions and uses metrics like “ecological footprint,” “material footprint,” and “consumption of energy and materials” to assess the environmental impact of nations. The core argument revolves around the discrepancy between what a country produces and what it consumes, which is a key theme of SDG 12.

• SDG 13: Climate Action

  This goal is addressed through the specific metric of “carbon emissions per capita,” which the article uses as one of the three basic measures of ecological sustainability. The analysis of countries like the US and Switzerland highlights their high environmental impact, which includes their contribution to climate change through emissions.

• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

  The article touches upon this goal by discussing how “historical models of development and conflict resolution have often relied on patterns of economic growth that come with high environmental costs.” This directly relates to the challenge of decoupling economic growth from environmental degradation, a central concept within SDG 8.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  • Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere. The article directly references this target by discussing the “number of global conflicts,” “internal conflict,” and the “384 deaths” resulting from conflict in the DRC in 2015.
  • Target 16.a: Strengthen relevant national institutions… to prevent violence and combat terrorism and crime. The article’s use of the “Positive Peace Index,” which it states “reflecting strong institutions and a stable society,” connects directly to this target. The high rankings of the US and Switzerland on this index are noted as a measure of their institutional strength and stability.

• SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

  • Target 12.2: By 2030, achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources. The article’s entire analysis is based on this target, using “ecological footprint” and “material footprint” to measure “overall resource use” and the “consumption of energy and materials.” The comparison between the DRC’s low footprint and the high footprints of the US and Switzerland highlights different levels of progress toward this target.

• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

  • Target 8.4: Improve progressively… global resource efficiency in consumption and production and endeavour to decouple economic growth from environmental degradation. The article’s conclusion that “historical paths to peace through development are complicated” and have relied on “economic growth that come with high environmental costs” directly addresses the challenge of this target. The contrast between peaceful but unsustainable countries (US, Switzerland) and a conflict-ridden but sustainable one (DRC) illustrates the difficulty of achieving this decoupling.

• SDG 13: Climate Action

  • Target 13.2: Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning. While not explicitly mentioning policies, the article’s use of “carbon emissions per capita” as a key national performance metric implies the importance of national-level climate action. The analysis of different countries’ emissions levels serves as a de facto assessment of their integration of climate considerations.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• For SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions):

  • Number of global conflicts: Mentioned in the first paragraph as having “doubled” in the past five years.
  • Conflict-related deaths: The article specifies “384 deaths” in the DRC from internal conflict in 2015.
  • Global Peace Index: Used as a primary measure of peace.
  • Positive Peace Index: Used as a measure of “strong institutions and a stable society.”

• For SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) and SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth):

  • Ecological Footprint: Explicitly named as a “basic measure of ecological sustainability” and used to compare countries.
  • Material Footprint: Also named as a “basic measure of ecological sustainability” and used in the country comparisons.
  • Consumption of energy and materials: Mentioned as a key factor in the large environmental footprint of the United States.

• For SDG 13 (Climate Action):

  • Carbon emissions per capita: Stated as one of the three “basic measures of ecological sustainability” used in the study.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: newsecuritybeat.org