Introduction - Conflicts Over Natural Resources in the Global South - page 5

beneficial cooperation, involve violence, or have a high potential of developing into
such cases (Smidt et al., Chapter 5).
Conflicts in the sense of confrontations are related to, but differ from conflicts
in the sense of conflicting interests. Conflicting interests may or may not lead to con-
frontations. For instance, if there is water scarcity, not all demands can be met and the
different water users will have a conflict of interests. However, effective institutions
may be in place that regulate and limit water use and facilitate peaceful relations. If
problems nonetheless occur, formal or informal conflict resolution procedures may be
used for resolving or containing the conflict and preventing escalation. Below we shall
note that while institutions can help to contain conflict, they can also provoke it.
The word 'cooperation' derives from the Latin cooperatio , which means working
together. Authors often add a qualification, working together “towards a common
goal.'' Actors, however, may also work together if they have different goals (Gray 1989;
Huxham and Vangen 2005). Cooperation is often seen as the opposite of conflict: the
more cooperation there is, the less conflict there will be, and vice versa. Yet, conflicting
interests do not exclude cooperation, and cooperation does not exclude conflicting
relations. Basing themselves on Zeitoun (e.g. Zeitoun and Mirumachi 2008; Zeitoun,
Mirumachi et al. 2010), Smidt et al. (Chapter 5) argue that formal agreements on
relatively minor issues may be concluded without the root causes of the problem being
addressed; hence the underlying conflict may actually persist.
It must be noted that we do not take a normative stance on conflict and acknowl-
edge the functions that conflict can serve.After all, if the root causes of a problem are
not addressed, cooperation may actually facilitate the perpetuation of injustice and
legitimise the status quo. An overt conflict may be necessary to deal with these root
causes. Kessler et al. (Chapter 11) refer to this as the 'positive functions' of conflict.
Yet, as Georgescu Roegen (1975) has already noted, drawn out conflict is also a very
wasteful process. While cooperation may benefit some more than others, conflict is
generally costly for all parties concerned, especially for those who possess less power
and fewer resources. Moreover, the outcomes of overt conflict are very uncertain.
Considerations such as these may explain why some inhabitants of the Palestinian
Territories are willing to cooperate on environmental matters with Israelis while oth-
ers are not. Cooperation may, for example, result in short-term environmental and
economic benefits, but it may also be seen as a 'normalisation' of the Israeli occupa-
tion of the West bank and Gaza strip. To complicate matters, within the Palestinian
Territories, political opponents are often accused of being 'normalisers', in order to
effectively discredit them. Thus the political costs of cooperation are increased (Abu
Sarah 2011).
The contributions to this topic make reference to a large number of potential causes
of conflicts. These can be grouped under three headings: causes related to the resources
themselves, causes having an origin in social tensions, and causes that follow from the
failings of institutional frameworks. These categories are not mutually exclusive.
Frerks et al. (Chapter 2) highlight the fierce debate that surrounded the relation-
ship between natural resources and conflict in the 1990s. This debate centred on the
question of whether it was the scarcity or rather the abundance of natural resources
that was the main origin of strife. The former thesis, ventured by authors such as
Homer-Dixon (1999), gained relevance from concerns over environmental degrada-
tion as well as population growth. The latter thesis - one that focused entirely on