{"id":9118,"date":"2026-05-02T10:05:51","date_gmt":"2026-05-02T08:05:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/academy.grainesdepaix.org\/ressources\/sustainable-development-and-peace-brundtland-report\/"},"modified":"2026-05-24T15:51:47","modified_gmt":"2026-05-24T13:51:47","slug":"sustainable-development-and-peace-brundtland-report","status":"publish","type":"ressource","link":"https:\/\/academy.grainesdepaix.org\/en\/ressources\/sustainable-development-and-peace-brundtland-report\/","title":{"rendered":"Sustainable development and peace (Brundtland Report)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
Violence, violent conflict and war destroy the environment, the market economy and life itself. They thus destroy each of the three areas of sustainable development. <\/p>\n\n
There can be no development without peace, and no sustainable development without peace. <\/strong>sustainable development <\/strong><\/em>without a culture of peace.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n
The Brundtlandt Report, published in 1987, not only defined and explained sustainable development and its three main dimensions. In chapter 11 below, it clearly explains the inherent contradiction between violence and war on the one hand and sustainable development on the other, and also addresses financial and budgetary aspects. <\/p>\n\n
28 years later, the UN has given concrete expression to this evidence with the formulation of ODD 16: Peace, but also justice and the prevention of institutional violence become genuine sustainable development goals. ODD 16 reads: <\/p>\n\n
\n
<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n
We invite you to read below the text of the Brundtland Report which illustrates this point.<\/p>\n\n<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
Report on sustainable development by the UN World Commission on Environment and Development, chaired by Gro Harlem Brundtland, 1987.<\/p>\n\n
Ch. 11: Peace, security, development and the environment <\/h2>\n\n
Introduction<\/h3>\n\n
“Of all the dangers facing the environment, the most serious is undoubtedly the possibility of nuclear war or military conflict on a smaller scale, but involving the use of weapons of mass destruction. Certain aspects of peace and security issues are directly relevant to the notion of sustainable development. In fact, they are of paramount importance to it.”<\/p>\n\n
“Environmental disruption is both a cause and an effect of political tensions and military conflicts (1). Countries have often fought to gain or resist control over raw materials, energy sources, territories, river basins, maritime straits and other key environmental elements. Disputes of this kind are likely to become increasingly frequent, as resources become scarcer and competition for them more intense. <\/p>\n\n
The consequences of armed conflict would be most disastrous for the environment in the event of thermonuclear war. But conventional, biological or chemical weapons, as well as the disruption of economic production and social organization caused by hostilities or mass migrations of refugees, would also have damaging effects. Even if war could be prevented and conflict limited, a state of “peace” could well involve the detour to arms production of ample resources that could, at least in part, be used to promote such and such sustainable development modalities. <\/p>\n\n
Many factors affect the relationship between environmental disruption, poverty and security, including inappropriate development policies, unfavorable trends in the international economy, injustices in multiracial societies and the pressures of population growth. The links between environment, development and conflict are complex and often poorly understood. But a comprehensive approach to international and national security must transcend the traditional focus on military power and armed competition. The real sources of insecurity also include unsustainable development, the effects of which can combine with traditional forms of conflict, potentially widening and deepening the latter. <\/p>\n\n
I. Environmental disruption as a source of conflict<\/h3>\n\n
Environmental disruption is rarely the sole cause of major conflicts within or between countries. Nevertheless, such conflicts can be caused by the marginalization of particular sectors of the population and the violence that ensues. This happens when political processes fail to control the effects of environmental disruption caused, for example, by erosion or desertification. Environmental disruption can therefore be an important link in the causal chain of a conflict, sometimes even acting as a catalyst. <\/p>\n\n
Poverty, injustice, environmental degradation and conflict interact in complex and active ways. One aspect that is causing growing concern in the international community is the phenomenon of “environmental refugees” (2). The immediate cause of a mass movement of refugees may be political unrest or military violence. But among the underlying causes we frequently find the deterioration of the natural resource base and its capacity to meet the needs of the population. <\/p>\n\n
Events in the Horn of Africa are a case in point. In the early 1970s, drought and famine struck Ethiopia. Yet it was found that, more than the drought, the hunger and human misery were due to years of overexploitation of soils in the Ethiopian highlands and the severe erosion that resulted. (…) (3).<\/p>\n\n
Wars have always forced people to leave their homes and lands, to become refugees. In our own time, too, wars have forced large numbers of people to leave their homelands. We are now also faced with the phenomenon of “ecological refugees”. In 1984-85, some 10 million Africans fled their homes; they represent two-thirds of the world’s total number of refugees. Their flight was hardly surprising, in a region where 35 million human beings were victims of famine. Many of these migrants invaded the cities. But many others crossed national borders, increasing tensions between states. C\u00f4te d’Ivoire, Ghana and Nigeria have been generous in welcoming refugees from the desertifying Sahel. Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe have also received large numbers of refugees. C\u00f4te d’Ivoire, for example, which relies on timber for a large part of its income, is suffering from accelerated deforestation due in part to a shortage of arable land, while a third of those without land are immigrants. In C\u00f4te d’Ivoire, agriculture destroys 4.5 times more forest than logging (4). <\/p>\n\n
Nearly a million Haitian “survivors of the sea”, one-sixth of the entire population, have fled their island homeland; this exodus is largely motivated by environmental degradation. Haiti suffers from one of the world’s most severe erosions (…); in the case of El Salvador, “the fundamental causes of the current conflict have as much to do with the environment as with politics, being linked to the problems posed by the distribution of resources in an overpopulated territory” (6). <\/p>\n\n
Similar problems arise in South Africa. The inhumane policy of apartheid lies at the heart of the conflict-ridden political situation in southern Africa. One of the many ways in which apartheid institutionalized both conflict and environmental degradation was by allocating, through the homeland system, 14% of the land to 72% of the population (7). Young blacks of working age left the overcultivated and overgrazed homelands to seek work in the cities, where, in addition to the squalor of overcrowded housing estates, they encountered extreme socio-economic inequality and racial segregation. They reacted. Repression intensified, victims fled across the border and, in the meantime, the South African regime extended the conflict to neighboring states. The whole region is caught up in the ensuing violence, which could well ignite a wider conflict involving the major powers. <\/p>\n\n
In addition to the related problems of poverty, injustice and environmental disruption, competition for non-renewable raw materials, land and energy sources can also generate tensions. It was the search for raw materials that was, to a large extent, at the root of the competition between colonial powers to conquer their possessions. It is partly because of the international interest in oil that conflicts in the Middle East inevitably harbor the seeds of great-power intervention and global conflagration. <\/p>\n\n
As unsustainable forms of development push certain countries into environmental constraints, the considerable differences between countries’ environmental heritages, or between the diversity of available land and raw material reserves, could precipitate and exacerbate international tensions and conflicts. And competition for the use of elements of humanity’s common heritage, such as deep-sea fisheries and the Antarctic, or for the use of more localized and less abundant common resources such as rivers and coastal waters, could lead to international conflict and thus threaten international peace and security. <\/p>\n\n
Global water consumption doubled between 1940 and 1980, and is expected to double again by the year 2000, with two-thirds of the projected quantities going to agriculture. And yet, 80 countries representing 40% of the world’s population are already suffering from serious water shortages (8). There will be increasing competition for water for irrigation, industrial and domestic uses. Disputes over river water have already arisen in North America (Rio Grande), South America (Rio de la Plata and Parana), South and South-East Asia (Mekong and Ganges), Africa (Nile) and the Middle East (Jordan, Litani, Orontes and Euphrates). <\/p>\n\n
Fishing, whether inshore or offshore, is fundamental to the food supply in many countries. (…). Disputes over fisheries may well become more frequent as fish catches exceed sustainable yields.<\/p>\n\n
Ecological threats to safety are also beginning to emerge on a global scale. The most worrying of these arise from the possible consequences of global warming, caused by an accumulation of carbon dioxide and other gaseous compounds in the atmosphere (9). (Vr Ch. 7). Climate change of this nature would most likely have uneven effects, disrupting agricultural systems in regions that provide a sizeable share of the world’s grain harvests, and possibly triggering massive population movements in regions where hunger is already endemic. In the first half of the next century, sea levels may rise sufficiently to radically alter the course and strategic importance of international waterways – both of which are likely to aggravate international tensions. Changes in climate and sea levels are also likely to affect the breeding grounds of economically important fish species. Slowing down global warming, or adapting to it, is becoming a crucial task if we are to reduce the risk of conflict. <\/p>\n\n
II. Conflict as a cause of unsustainable development <\/h3>\n\n
Arms competition and armed conflict can be formidable obstacles to sustainable development. They are a heavy burden on insufficiently abundant material resources. They pre-empt human resources and wealth that could be used to combat the collapse of environmental protection systems, poverty and underdevelopment, all of which are largely responsible for today’s political insecurity. They can foster a mindset hostile to cooperation between countries whose ecological and economic interdependence requires them to overcome national or ideological antipathies. <\/p>\n\n
The existence of nuclear weapons, and the destructive potential inherent in the speed and intensity of modern conventional warfare, has given rise to a new approach to the conditions required to ensure the security of nations. In the nuclear age, countries can no longer achieve security at each other’s expense. They must seek it through cooperation, mutual understanding and moderation; they must seek common security (10). It follows that interdependence, which plays such a fundamental role in the environmental and economic fields, is also a factor in the arms race and military security. Interdependence has become a compelling factor, forcing countries to reconcile their approaches to “security”. <\/p>\n\n
1. Nuclear war – A threat to civilization<\/strong><\/p>\n\n
The likely consequences of a nuclear war make other environmental threats seem insignificant. Nuclear weapons represent a qualitatively new stage in the art of warfare. A single thermonuclear bomb can have a greater explosive power than any explosive used in combat since the invention of gunpowder. In addition to the destructive effects of blast and heat, immensely enhanced by these weapons, they bring into play a new lethal agent – ionizing radiation – which prolongs lethal effects in both space and time. <\/p>\n\n
In recent years, scientists have also drawn our attention to the prospect of a “nuclear winter”. Some 300 scientists from the USA, the USSR and over 30 other countries, working together despite their ideological differences, have studied this question with all the authority that attaches to their competence (11). <\/p>\n\n
According to this theory, the smoke and dust spewed into the atmosphere by a nuclear war could absorb sufficient solar radiation and remain there for some time, preventing sunlight from reaching the Earth’s surface and causing widespread and prolonged cooling in certain land areas. This would have serious repercussions for the plant world in general and agriculture in particular, disrupting the food production needed to meet the needs of those who survived the war. There are still major uncertainties as to the scale and sequence of the effects on the environment, but it is thought that the disruption would probably be widespread. A nuclear war would be a no-win situation, and should never be fought. In its wake, there would be no difference between the so-called victors and the vanquished. The nuclear-armed states must make every effort to conclude a duly verifiable agreement banning all nuclear weapons tests. <\/p>\n\n
The nuclear winter conclusions are also very important for non-aligned countries, especially in the South, which are not party to the East-West confrontation. They cannot hope to escape the potentially disastrous consequences of a nuclear war in the northern hemisphere. The consequences of such a war would be felt throughout the world. There is a danger that nuclear weapons would spread to a growing number of countries, and be used in what would begin as a limited regional conflict. In addition to the five nuclear-weapon states duly recognized as such, at least six others are widely regarded as having a potential nuclear weapons capability, and a dozen more are not far behind. In the absence of genuine progress towards nuclear disarmament, nuclear-weapon states cannot expect non-nuclear-weapon states to refrain from resorting to the nuclear option. It is therefore of the utmost importance that the likely consequences of nuclear war should be universally perceived, and that all states should engage in efforts to prevent the proliferation and, above all, the use of nuclear weapons. <\/p>\n\n
2. Other weapons of mass destruction<\/strong><\/p>\n\n
Other forms of warfare and weapons of mass destruction would have far-reaching effects on both human communities and the human environment. Biological warfare could unleash new pathogens that would prove difficult to combat. Recent advances in biotechnology are multiplying the potentially legal applications of these weapons. Similarly, the deliberate manipulation of the environment (in the form of artificially induced floods or earthquakes, for example) would, if ever resorted to, have consequences extending far beyond the borders of the parties to a conflict. Chemical agents can seriously damage the environment, as demonstrated by the defoliants used in South-East Asia. The dangerous and unpredictable environmental consequences of biological and chemical weapons have led to the signing of international agreements prohibiting their use (12). But further efforts are needed to reinforce the measures to which these agreements contribute. In particular, the Geneva Protocol prohibiting the use of chemical weapons should be supplemented by agreements banning the manufacture and stockpiling of such weapons. <\/p>\n\n
Military applications of new technologies now threaten to turn outer space into a hotbed of international competition and confrontation. (See Chapter 10). Most countries in the international community consider space to be a common heritage of mankind, which should benefit humanity as a whole; this sentiment is reflected in the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, under which countries agreed not to deploy weapons of mass destruction in this environment. Governments should now agree on measures to prevent an arms race in space, and put an end to it on Earth. Failing such agreement, the arms race could extend into space, with dire consequences for humanity. <\/p>\n\n
3. The cost of an “arms culture<\/strong><\/p>\n\n
The absence of war is not peace, nor does it necessarily offer the conditions necessary for sustainable development. A competitive arms race breeds insecurity between countries, creating spirals of mutual fear. Countries need to mobilize resources to combat environmental degradation and massive poverty. By misdirecting the use of insufficiently abundant resources, the arms race contributes to increased insecurity. <\/p>\n\n
The coexistence of high military spending and unmet human needs has long been a matter of concern. At the end of his presidency, for example, President Eisenhower observed that “every cannon made, every warship launched, every rocket fired represents, in the last analysis, theft from the hungry and unfed, the cold and unclothed” (13). <\/p>\n\n
In 1985, global military spending was well over 900 billion dollars (14) (editor’s note: 1450 billion in 2009). This was more than the total income of the poorest half of humanity. That’s the equivalent of almost $1,000 for each of the world’s bottom billion. In other words, military spending exceeded the combined gross national product of China, India and the African countries south of the Sahara. What’s more, global military spending has risen not only in absolute terms, but also in relative terms, from an estimated 4.7% of world output in 1960 to over 6%, representing an increase of around 150% in real terms (in constant prices). Today, three quarters of spending takes place in the industrialized world (15). <\/p>\n\n
The true cost of the arms race is the loss of what could have been produced instead of weapons with capital, professional skills and raw materials, whose availability is not unlimited. Weapons factories, the transportation of these weapons and the extraction of the minerals needed to make them all consume huge quantities of energy and mineral resources, and contribute greatly to pollution and environmental deterioration. <\/p>\n\n
It is in the deployment of scientific personnel that the distorting effects of the “weapons culture” are most striking. Half a million scientists are engaged in weapons research worldwide, absorbing around half of all R&D expenditure (16). This exceeds the total amount spent on developing technologies for new energy sources, improving public health, increasing agricultural yields and combating pollution. Military R&D – $70-80 billion worldwide in 1984 – is growing at twice the rate of total military expenditure (17). At the same time, there is a shortage of resources for observing changes in the world’s climate, for monitoring the ecosystems of disappearing tropical rainforests and growing deserts, and for developing appropriate technologies for tropical agriculture in regions of high rainfall. <\/p>\n\n
Countries are looking for a new era of economic growth. The level of arms spending undermines the prospects of such an era, especially one emphasizing more efficient use of raw materials, energy and human skills. It also influences, albeit indirectly, the willingness of rich countries to help developing countries develop. Of course, there is no simple relationship between a reduction in military spending and an increase in aid. Apart from domestic material constraints, there are other reasons for reluctance to increase aid, and countries cannot expect disarmament before devoting more resources to sustained development. Nevertheless, an increase in defense spending puts pressure on other budget items, and aid is a natural target, even though it represents a relatively small expense for most donor countries (18). <\/p>\n\n
While a shift in resources is clearly possible, resources currently devoted to military applications cannot be quickly or easily deployed elsewhere – in other sectors or in other countries. This transformation runs up against technical problems, not the least of which is the contribution military spending makes to job creation in economies with high unemployment. And beyond technical problems, there are questions of political will. Nevertheless, some countries – China, Argentina and Peru, for example – have recently shown that it is both technically and politically possible to replace military spending with civilian spending in a short space of time (19). <\/p>\n\n
4. Global armaments and the expansion of the “armaments culture<\/strong><\/p>\n\n
Countries have traditionally adhered to an “arms culture”. They find themselves engaged in arms races, not least by powerful vested interests within the “military-industrial complex” and the armed forces themselves. The industrialized countries account for the lion’s share of military spending and the manufacture and transfer of weapons in the international community. However, the influence of this “arms culture” is not limited to these countries. It is also felt in the developing world, encouraged both by the desire of many governments to ensure their security through the acquisition of weapons, and by the expansion of the global arms trade. <\/p>\n\n
Since the early 1960s, military spending in developing countries as a whole has increased fivefold. Their share of total expenditure has risen from less than a tenth to almost a quarter of a much higher total (20). Some developing countries, such as the Republic of Korea, have managed to achieve a high level of development, despite military spending. But careful analysis suggests that increases in military spending have had negative effects on economic performance (21). <\/p>\n\n
In addition, defense spending is one of the most import-intensive activities, usually resulting in high indirect demand for spare parts, ammunition, maintenance services, personnel training and fuels, which also have to be imported. According to some estimates, 20% of the foreign debt incurred by non-oil-producing developing countries in the decade prior to 1982 was attributable to arms imports (22). And high levels of arms spending, motivated by a variety of reasons, have undoubtedly contributed to the severity of development crises in Africa, where military expenditure rose, in real terms, by 7.8% per annum between 1971 and 1982, and arms imports by 18.5% (23). <\/p>\n\n
The rise of an “arms culture” in many developing countries presents particular dangers in terms of environmental disruption and poverty. There are already numerous disputes festering in the Third World – over forty as yet unresolved – many of which concern borders defined in colonial times. <\/p>\n\n
Sophisticated weapons can help turn a potential conflict into an actual one. According to the United Nations Group of Governmental Experts on the relationship between disarmament and development, there is now absolutely no doubt that resource scarcity and ecological constraints pose real and imminent threats to the future well-being of all peoples and nations. These problems are essentially non-military in nature, and it is absolutely essential that they be treated as such. If this state of affairs is not recognized, we run the risk of finding ourselves faced with a crisis situation so serious that it would seem to justify, even with a slim chance of success, the use of force to achieve sufficiently rapid results. This possibility cannot be entirely ruled out. In recent years, international relations have been characterized by a marked tendency to resort to the threat or use of military force, in response to security threats of a non-military nature (24). <\/p>\n\n
The situation in many developing countries presents particular dangers, due to the environmental disruption caused by poverty. Mass movements of refugees, competition for scarce water resources and fertile land, or for oil and raw material deposits, ill-defined borders and other factors all contribute to fuelling tensions and increasing the potential for conflict. Arms imports by developing countries have also increased as a result of these conflicts, potential or real. They are sometimes encouraged by arms manufacturers, because of the high profits they bring in, which in turn can support arms manufacture in exporting countries. It is estimated that the arms trade has absorbed more than $300 billion over the last two decades, three-quarters of which is accounted for by sales to developing countries (25). <\/p>\n\n
III. Towards safety and sustainable development <\/h3>\n\n
1. Principles<\/strong><\/p>\n\n
The first step towards creating a more satisfactory basis for managing the correlations between security and sustainable development is to broaden our vision. Conflicts may arise not only because of political or military threats to national sovereignty, but also as a consequence of environmental and policy degradation. <\/p>\n\n
There are, of course, no military solutions to “environmental insecurity”. And modern warfare can itself generate environmental risks on an international scale. Moreover, the idea of national sovereignty has been radically altered by economic, ecological and security interdependence. The common heritage of mankind cannot be managed from any one national center; a single state cannot control threats to ecosystems that extend across several countries. Threats to environmental security can only be overcome through joint management and multilateral procedures and mechanisms. <\/p>\n\n
2. Cooperative management<\/strong><\/p>\n\n
Ecological constraints already encourage countries to cooperate, and give some indication of the means to be used to this end. Antarctica is the subject of a far-reaching agreement which provides for a collective approach to management (see Chapter 10). Various institutional systems, often quite complex and sophisticated, currently exist to promote bilateral and regional cooperation in marine fisheries, so as to regulate maximum sustainable yields and the distribution of catches. One of the main threats to the oceans – the dumping of highly toxic wastes – has so far been regulated by the London Dumping Convention. As far as international water bodies are concerned, impressive progress has been made by the bilateral U.S.-Canada Great Lakes Commission. The Mediterranean Convention, just one of many such instruments under UNEP’s Regional Seas Programme, brings together coastal states in an arrangement to monitor and combat marine pollution. <\/p>\n\n
Some of the most sensitive problems require cooperation between countries with different or even antagonistic systems of government. The Chernobyl reactor accident in the Soviet Union in 1986 resulted in two agreements on international cooperation in the event of such an accident. In future, the country in question will immediately notify neighboring states, which will in turn offer assistance at cost price and without liability (26). The 1979 Convention on Transboundary Pollution has provided a framework for monitoring and assessing damage caused by acid rain pollutants in Europe (27). <\/p>\n\n
Cooperation between developing countries on environmental issues has often been hampered by poor communications. Nevertheless, many countries now participate in UNEP’s Regional Seas Program. The countries of the Sahel have set up a regional organization to deal with desertification, and a body of excellent monographs on river basin management is being built up, as witnessed in Africa by the joint management programs for the Senegal basin. <\/p>\n\n
3. The importance of early warning<\/strong><\/p>\n\n
Given that it is often uncertainty or insecurity that is at the root of international conflict, it is vital that governments become aware of impending environmental disruption, before the damage actually threatens vital national interests. Governments are generally not very well equipped for this kind of forecasting. <\/p>\n\n
It would be highly desirable for appropriate international organizations, including the relevant United Nations bodies and individual regional organizations, to pool their resources – and make use of the most advanced monitoring techniques available – to create a reliable early warning system for environmental risks or conflicts (see Chapter 12). Such a system would monitor indicators of potential risks and disputes, such as soil erosion, the growth of regional immigration, and uses of common property resources approaching thresholds of “unsustainability”. The organizations would also offer their services to help the countries concerned define principles and create joint management bodies. <\/p>\n\n
4. Disarming and safety<\/strong><\/p>\n\n
Action to reduce ecological threats to security requires a redefinition of priorities, both nationally and globally. This redefinition could take the form of widespread acceptance of broader modalities of security assessment, encompassing military, political, ecological and other sources of conflict. <\/p>\n\n
A broader approach to security assessment would undoubtedly identify many cases where national, regional or global security could be enhanced with very modest expenditure, compared to military spending levels. Four of the world’s most pressing environmental needs – those relating to tropical forests, water, desertification and demography – could be financed with the equivalent of less than one month’s global military spending (see Box 11-1). Redirecting budgetary resources is difficult, but some governments have already shown that a transformation is possible, provided there is the political will to do so. In some of the countries most seriously affected by environmental disruption and poverty, the sums required to improve the situation are modest compared with what is currently spent on disaster relief, not to mention military activities. But these sums will have to be spent quickly, before the deterioration of the situation necessitates much greater expenditure. <\/p>\n\n
However, from the point of view of the total amount of resources required to meet arms expenditure and the potential threat to the environment that war represents, the overriding need is to improve relations between the major powers that are in a position to deploy weapons of mass destruction. This is essential if we are to reach agreement on stricter control over the proliferation and testing of different types of mass destruction – nuclear and non-nuclear – including those with environmental implications. <\/p>\n\n
An appreciable number of existing agreements already illustrate the possibility of negotiated multilateral solutions. President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev have made substantial progress towards an agreement on strategic armaments; this progress must be continued if the alarming trends of several decades are to be reversed. Apparently, the two great powers have come close to an agreement on intermediate-range missile systems in Europe, which should be followed by agreements prohibiting the advanced deployment of shorter-range systems. This would significantly ease the security pressures of nuclear weapons in Europe. In addition, these powers are moving towards an agreement to reduce strategic systems by 50 percent, to be followed by agreements to eliminate them altogether. They also need to agree on the prevention of an arms race in space. Successful negotiations would make a major contribution to curbing the spread of nuclear weapons, as the major nuclear-weapon states fulfill their pledges to reduce their nuclear arsenals. Such progress would meet the fundamental needs of our time, and humanity’s right to see the spectre of nuclear destruction wiped from the face of the earth. <\/p>\n\n
Countries must abandon the destructive logic of an “arms culture” and focus instead on their common future. The level of armaments and the destruction they could cause are out of all proportion to the conflictive political situation that initially triggered the arms race. Countries must not become hostages to their own arms race. They must face up to the common danger inherent in the weapons of the nuclear age. They must rise to the common challenge of ensuring sustainable development, and act together to eliminate the growing sources of conflict that relate to the environment.” <\/p>\n\n
<\/figure>\n\n