UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAM
AGENDA: Promoting inclusive and sustainable
environmental recovery and fostering social cohesion in
post-conflict countries.
PROMETHEUS MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2025
1
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Introduction from the Executive Board
Introduction to the Committee
Definition of Key Terms
History of the Issue
Past Actions on the Issue
Future solutions
Questions a resolution must answer
Bloc Positions
2
Introduction from the Executive Board
Dear Delegates,
On behalf of the Executive Board of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) , it is
our distinct honour to welcome you to this vital and opportune committee. As representatives of
nations spanning the globe, your presence here reflects a deep and shared commitment to
protecting and advancing human rights—especially in regions facing systematic injustice and
threat to safety . This year, our agenda focuses on a matter of urgent global importance:
Promoting inclusive and sustainable environmental recovery and fostering social cohesion
in post-conflicts countries.
In the face of conflict, political upheaval, and humanitarian emergencies, the environment and
the social fabric of societies are often among the first to be destroyed and the hardest to restore.
Devastated ecosystems, poisoned water sources, and depleted lands do not merely hinder
recovery—they become new sources of inequality, grievance, and renewed violence. When
environmental restoration excludes entire communities, or when natural resources are rebuilt
without justice and shared benefit, fragile peace unravels and sustainable development remains
out of reach.
Your role as delegates is crucial in confronting these intertwined crises and developing solutions
that are grounded in inclusion, sustainability, and human dignity. The United Nations
Development Programme offers a unique platform to address the systemic and often overlooked
ways that environmental degradation and social division undermine recovery in post-conflict
regions. Our aim is not only to identify the barriers that prevent inclusive green recovery, but to
craft practical, conflict-sensitive policies that ensure the voices, needs, and leadership of affected
people—especially women, youth, indigenous peoples, minorities, displaced persons, and former
combatants—are prioritised at every stage of rebuilding lives and livelihoods.
We must acknowledge the difficult truths: across the globe, hard-won gains in post-conflict
stability are being reversed. In many regions, environmental recovery remains technically driven
and socially blind, reconstruction contracts favour elites, and resource governance deepens old
3
divisions rather than healing them. These setbacks are not merely operational—they are
symptoms of deeper structural failures that must be addressed head-on. In this committee, we
have the opportunity and responsibility to propose bold UNDP programming frameworks and
recommendations that turn environmental recovery into a genuine engine for social cohesion and
lasting peace.
As we prepare to engage in this critical dialogue, we thank you for your dedication, your
insights, and your passion for development that leaves no one behind. The road ahead is
complex, but together, we can advance a vision of post-conflict recovery where degraded lands
are restored equitably, where shared natural resources rebuild trust across former conflict lines,
and where every community emerges stronger, greener, and more united than before.
We look forward to thoughtful, impactful deliberations and wish you an enriching and inspiring
experience in this esteemed committee.
Regards,
Plaksha Rathore
Presidents, UNDP
Humam Jafri
Vice President, UNDP
Introduction to the Committee
4
The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) has long stood as the United Nations’
global development network, operational in 170 countries and territories, and widely regarded as
the backbone of the UN’s work on sustainable development, crisis prevention, and democratic
governance. Established in 1965 through the merger of the Expanded Programme of Technical
Assistance and the UN Special Fund, UNDP has evolved into the leading UN agency supporting
countries to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) while addressing fragility,
conflict, and climate vulnerability.
Its foundation rests on the conviction that lasting peace and prosperity are impossible without
inclusive institutions, resilient livelihoods, and a healthy environment. UNDP works on the
principle that development must be people-centred, environmentally sustainable, and conflict-
sensitive—especially in the world’s most fragile and post-conflict regions.
The core mandate of UNDP is to help countries eradicate poverty, reduce inequalities, and build
resilience to shocks and crises. Through its country offices, regional hubs, and global policy
centres, UNDP provides a unique platform where governments, communities, civil society,
private sector, and international partners collaborate to design and implement solutions that are
locally owned and globally informed.
UNDP’s strategic objectives under the Strategic Plan 2022–2025 are built around six Signature
Solutions, two of which are directly relevant to post-conflict recovery:
Signature Solution 3: Building Resilience to shocks and crises
Signature Solution 6: Strengthening effective, inclusive, and accountable governance
To achieve these, UNDP focuses on:
Accelerate structural transformations for sustainable development: supporting green,
inclusive recovery pathways that turn environmental restoration into shared livelihoods
and peace dividends.
Strengthen crisis prevention and recovery: integrating environmental programming with
disarmament, demobilisation, and reintegration (DDR), rule of law, and social cohesion
initiatives.
5
Mainstream conflict sensitivity and peace responsiveness across all programming,
ensuring that environmental interventions reduce, rather than reinforce, grievances.
Foster multi-stakeholder partnerships: working with UNEP, PBSO, the World Bank, EU,
and local communities to deliver joint environmental peacebuilding initiatives.
Leave No One Behind: deliberately targeting women, youth, indigenous peoples,
minorities, displaced persons, and ex-combatants in recovery design and implementation.
UNDP has facilitated many landmark initiatives that have reshaped post-conflict recovery: the
Crisis Response and Recovery Solutions package, the Funding Facility for Stabilization in Iraq
(debris removal → livelihoods → social cohesion), the Colombia “Green Municipalities”
program with ex-FARC combatants, and the joint UNEP-UNDP-EU Environmental
Peacebuilding program launched in 2020.
In recent years, UNDP has sharpened its focus on the triple nexus (Humanitarian–Development–
Peace) and the environment-peace nexus. It has pioneered area-based recovery approaches that
treat ecosystems as entry points for dialogue and trust-building, and it has scaled up cash-for-
work programs that simultaneously restore degraded lands and bring former adversaries together.
Looking ahead, UNDP remains committed to advancing inclusive and sustainable recovery with
renewed urgency. Its future priorities in post-conflict environmental programming include:
Scaling environmental peacebuilding as a core component of all crisis and post-crisis
portfolios
Integrating social cohesion indicators into every environmental recovery project
Expanding renewable energy and climate-smart agriculture as platforms for inter-
community cooperation
Strengthening land and natural resource governance to prevent relapse into conflict
Centring indigenous and local knowledge in restoration and resilience-building
6
Leveraging digital tools and innovative finance (green bonds, payment for ecosystem
services) for inclusive green recovery
Additionally, UNDP aims to deepen partnerships with governments, local communities, youth
and women’s organisations, indigenous groups, the private sector, and sister UN agencies to pool
expertise, mobilise resources, and deliver transformative impact.
Through united, inclusive, and environmentally conscious action, UNDP envisions a world
where post-conflict countries do not just rebuild what they were—they emerge stronger, greener,
and more cohesive than before.
7
Definition of Key Terms
UNDP Mandate: The United Nations Development Programme is the UN’s global development
network, established in 1965 by UNGA Resolution 2029 (XX). Its core mission is to help
countries achieve sustainable development and reduce poverty. When referring to UNDP’s work
in crisis settings, delegates must refer to the UNDP Strategic Plan 2022-2025, particularly
Signature Solution 3 (Building Resilience) and Signature Solution 6 (Strengthening Governance
and Peacebuilding).
UNDP Crisis Offer (2023): Adopted by the UNDP Executive Board, this document outlines
UNDP’s integrated approach to post-crisis recovery, emphasizing the triple nexus (humanitarian-
development-peace) and committing the organisation to deliver inclusive, green, and conflict-
sensitive programming in fragile and post-conflict regions.
Post-Conflict Regions: Areas that are recovering from armed conflict and entering peacebuilding
or reconstruction stages. Examples include Colombia (post-2016 peace agreement), Sri Lanka
(post-2009), Democratic Republic of Congo (eastern provinces), Iraq (post-ISIS), Yemen
(ongoing ceasefire areas), and Ukraine (liberated territories).
Environmental Recovery: The process of restoring degraded natural resources (soil, water,
forests, wetlands) damaged by conflict, while ensuring long-term sustainability and climate
resilience.
Inclusive Recovery: Deliberate programming that ensures full participation and equitable
benefits for all groups, especially women, youth, indigenous peoples, ethnic minorities, displaced
persons, and ex-combatants.
Social Cohesion: The bonds of trust and cooperation within and between communities, measured
by horizontal ties (between groups) and vertical ties (between people and institutions). Strong
social cohesion reduces the risk of renewed violence.
8
Displaced People: Persons who have been forced to leave their homes due to conflict, violence,
or disaster, either internally (IDPs) or across borders (refugees). In post-conflict regions, they
often face barriers to returning and accessing restored land or resources.
Ex-Combatants: Former fighters from armed groups who are undergoing disarmament,
demobilisation, and reintegration (DDR). Their inclusion in environmental recovery projects is
critical to prevent re-recruitment and build peace.
Do No Harm Principle: A core approach requiring all interventions to avoid exacerbating
conflict or creating new grievances, especially around access to natural resources.
Conflict Sensitivity: The practice of understanding the conflict context and designing
programmes to reduce tensions and promote peace rather than fuel division.
Local Ownership: The principle that affected communities must lead the design, implementation,
and monitoring of recovery projects to ensure relevance and sustainability.
Build Back Better and Greener: A UNDP guiding concept that calls for post-conflict
reconstruction to be more environmentally sustainable, socially inclusive, and resilient than
before the conflict.
Natural Resources: Land, water, forests, minerals, and other environmental assets that, if
mismanaged in post-conflict settings, can become sources of renewed conflict (also called
“conflict resources”).
Triple Nexus: The integrated approach linking humanitarian action (immediate relief),
development (long-term recovery), and peacebuilding (social cohesion and governance) in crisis
and post-conflict regions.
Civil Society Organizations: Non-governmental, community-based, or voluntary groups that play
a key role in UNDP projects by representing local voices, delivering services, and monitoring
inclusivity.
9
Livelihoods: Sources of income and economic security, often restored through cash-for-work
programmes on environmental projects (e.g., reforestation, canal clearing) that also foster inter-
group cooperation.
Declaration: A formal statement issued by UNDP or partner governments outlining
commitments to inclusive and sustainable recovery principles.
Grievance: A real or perceived injustice, often related to unequal access to land, water, or
recovery benefits, that can trigger renewed violence if not addressed.
Area-Based Approach: A UNDP method that focuses recovery efforts on specific geographic
zones affected by conflict, bringing together multiple sectors (environment, livelihoods,
governance) for integrated impact.
Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC): The right of indigenous peoples to give or withhold
consent to projects affecting their lands, as recognised in UNDRIP and applied in UNDP
environmental recovery programmes.
We encourage all delegates to use these terms accurately in position papers, resolutions, and
speeches. Refer to the UNDP Mandate and Strategic Plan when explaining why UNDP is the
right agency to lead this agenda.
10
History of the Issue
The relationship between conflict, environment, and social fabric has always been inseparable.
From the scorched-earth tactics of ancient warfare to the deliberate destruction of marshes,
forests, and farmlands in modern conflicts, natural ecosystems have repeatedly been weaponized
and victimized. At the same time, access to land, water, forests, and minerals has fueled
grievances, financed armed groups, and sustained cycles of violence. When the guns finally fall
silent, degraded environments and fractured communities inherit the same territory—often
turning recovery itself into a new source of exclusion, elite capture, and renewed tension.
Throughout history, post-conflict reconstruction has overwhelmingly prioritized rapid
infrastructure and macroeconomic growth over environmental sustainability and social equity.
After World War II, the Marshall Plan rebuilt Europe’s industrial base with little regard for
ecological restoration or the land rights of displaced minorities. In Vietnam, Laos, and
Cambodia, millions of hectares remain contaminated by unexploded ordnance and Agent Orange
decades after the wars ended, denying returning communities safe access to farmland and water
while perpetuating poverty among ethnic minorities.
The 1990s Balkan wars saw the deliberate targeting of rivers, forests, and industrial sites,
releasing toxic pollutants that crossed ethnic lines yet disproportionately affected marginalized
Roma communities. In Rwanda, post-genocide land pressure—exacerbated by returning refugees
and unclear tenure—triggered new disputes over wetlands and hillsides, undermining
reconciliation efforts. In Iraq and Syria, the deliberate destruction and looting of water
infrastructure and oil fields turned shared resources into tools of domination and revenge.
Across various post-conflict regions, recurring patterns persist:
11
Land grabbing and elite capture of reconstruction contracts
Exclusion of indigenous peoples, women, and ethnic minorities from land restitution and
benefit-sharing
Top-down “green” projects that displace communities or favor one group over another
Environmental restoration programs that create jobs but reinforce ethnic or tribal
segregation
Climate change amplifying resource scarcity in already divided societies
The 21st century has brought new urgency. The triple nexus of conflict, climate change, and
environmental degradation now threatens to reverse development gains in the most fragile states.
From the Sahel to the Horn of Africa, drought and desertification—worsened by decades of
conflict-related deforestation and poor governance—are displacing millions and igniting new
inter-communal clashes. In Colombia, even after the 2016 Peace Agreement, former FARC
territories have seen accelerated deforestation as illegal armed groups and land speculators move
in, displacing Afro-Colombian and indigenous communities who were never fully included in
the peace process.
Despite the advancement of concepts such as “environmental peacebuilding,” “build back better
and greener,” and the triple Humanitarian-Development-Peace nexus, practical implementation
remains limited by: i) Prioritization of short-term political stability over long-term sustainability
ii) Lack of conflict-sensitive environmental assessments iii) Inadequate funding and technical
capacity for inclusive natural resource governance iv) Weak integration of social cohesion
indicators into recovery programming v) Continued dominance of extractive economic models in
post-conflict settings
Furthermore, environmental recovery initiatives are increasingly politicized—used either as
leverage in peace negotiations or as photo-opportunity “flagship projects” that mask deeper
exclusion.
In conclusion, the failure to link inclusive and sustainable environmental recovery with social
cohesion in post-conflict regions is not merely a technical oversight—it is a direct threat to
12
lasting peace and sustainable development. While frameworks such as UNDP’s Strategic Plan
2022–2025, the 2030 Agenda, and the Environmental Peacebuilding community of practice have
elevated the issue, real-world impact continues to lag. Without genuine political commitment,
dedicated financing, conflict-sensitive design, and the meaningful leadership of affected
communities—especially women, youth, indigenous peoples, and minorities—this cycle of
degradation and division will persist. UNDP, with its presence in over 170 countries and its
unique ability to operate across the humanitarian-development-peace spectrum, has both the
mandate and the responsibility to ensure that post-conflict recovery finally heals both people and
planet, together.
This committee is called to turn that responsibility into action.
13
Past Actions on the Issue
The United Nations and its various bodies have long recognized the critical link between
environmental degradation, natural resource governance, and the durability of peace in post-
conflict settings. Over the decades, multiple initiatives have been launched to ensure that
recovery is not only rapid but also inclusive, sustainable, and capable of preventing relapse into
violence. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) has played a central and
pioneering role in these efforts.
UNDP Strategic Plan (2008–present) and Crisis Bureau creation: From the 2008–2013 cycle
onward, UNDP explicitly integrated conflict prevention, disaster recovery, and environmental
sustainability into its core mandate. The establishment of the Crisis Bureau (formerly Bureau for
Crisis Prevention and Recovery) formalized UNDP’s leadership in post-conflict and fragile
settings, with environmental recovery and social cohesion identified as cross-cutting priorities.
UNDP–UNEP Partnership on Environment and Peacebuilding (2008–ongoing): This joint
programme, later expanded with EU and PBSO, introduced the concept of “environmental
peacebuilding.” It provides technical guidance, funding mechanisms (e.g., Peacebuilding Fund
environmental window), and field-level tools to ensure natural resource management contributes
directly to reconciliation and trust-building.
Signature Solutions in the UNDP Strategic Plan 2022–2025: Signature Solution 3 (Building
Resilience) and Signature Solution 6 (Strengthening Effective, Inclusive and Accountable
Governance) explicitly commit UNDP to “promoting inclusive and sustainable environmental
recovery and fostering social cohesion” in post-conflict regions. The plan mandates the use of
14
area-based, conflict-sensitive, and gender-responsive approaches in all crisis recovery
programming.
The New Way of Working & Humanitarian–Development–Peace (HDP) Nexus (2016
World Humanitarian Summit): Endorsed by UNDP, this framework commits the UN system
to transcend traditional silos. In post-conflict environmental programming, it translates into joint
humanitarian mine-action, development-focused restoration, and peace-oriented community
governance of natural resources—all implemented simultaneously rather than sequentially.
UNDP Recovery Solutions for Crisis and Fragile Contexts (2023): This corporate offer
package mainstreams inclusive green recovery across all UNDP country programmes operating
in post-conflict environments. It includes dedicated tools such as Conflict and Development
Analysis (CDA), Post-Conflict Environmental Assessments, Community-Based Natural
Resource Management frameworks, and the Social Cohesion and Reconciliation (SCORE) Index
developed with partner organizations.
Through its country presence, trust with national governments, and ability to work across the
humanitarian–development–peace spectrum, the United Nations Development Programme has
become the go-to agency for translating environmental cooperation into tangible peace
dividends. By partnering with UNEP, PBSO, UN Women, OHCHR, and local civil society,
UNDP has mobilized funding, technical expertise, and political will to ensure that post-conflict
recovery heals ecosystems and rebuilds relationships at the same time. Its efforts continue to
shape international standards, national policies, and community-level practices toward greener,
fairer, and more cohesive post-conflict societies.
15
Future solutions
Effectively delivering inclusive and sustainable environmental recovery in post-conflict regions
demands a multi-dimensional approach that integrates environmental, economic, governance,
and peacebuilding interventions. It requires coordinated immediate and long-term strategies, with
special emphasis on conflict-sensitive programming, local ownership, equitable benefit-sharing,
and the empowerment of marginalized groups—including women, youth, indigenous peoples,
minorities, displaced persons, and ex-combatants.
It is essential to embed inclusivity and sustainability into all post-crisis recovery policies.
Ensuring that no group is excluded from access to restored land, water, forests, or green
livelihoods must be a priority for governments, donors, and implementing agencies.
Guaranteeing that environmental recovery projects adhere to the “Do No Harm” principle and
actively contribute to social cohesion—rather than reinforcing old divisions—is necessary for
lasting peace. Moreover, it is critical to create frameworks for community-led, conflict-sensitive
decision-making in natural resource governance.
Many relapses into violence occur when national governments or powerful elites exploit the
chaos of post-conflict transition to capture resources, weaken customary tenure, or marginalise
certain groups from reconstruction benefits. Development partners and international financial
institutions should tie recovery funding to verifiable commitments to inclusive and sustainable
environmental management—such as transparent land restitution processes, equitable
distribution of green jobs, and joint management bodies that cross former conflict lines. A
16
dedicated portion of all post-conflict recovery funds should be allocated to community-based
organisations, women’s groups, indigenous authorities, and youth-led initiatives leading
environmental restoration and dialogue.
To prevent resource-based grievances from reigniting conflict, inclusive and sustainable
environmental recovery must become a core component of all national development plans and
peace agreements, backed by enforceable safeguards. The principles of the UN Declaration on
the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), ILO Convention 169, and the UNDP–UNEP Joint
Framework on Environmental Peacebuilding should be strengthened with clearer accountability
and financing mechanisms. Recovery programmes must be tasked not only with restoring
ecosystems, but with actively building trust—through shared labour, joint resource committees,
and measurable improvements in inter-group cooperation.
Disinformation and divisive narratives frequently portray certain communities as “environmental
destroyers” or “obstacles to progress,” poisoning cooperation over shared resources. Digital
platforms, national governments, and international partners must collaborate to counter hate
speech and false narratives that undermine joint restoration efforts, especially during fragile
transition periods. It is critical to support community-owned communication channels and
national action plans that promote positive stories of cooperation, reconciliation, and shared
benefit from green recovery.
Together, we can transform post-conflict environmental recovery from a technical exercise into a
powerful engine for reconciliation, resilience, and sustainable development that truly leaves no
one behind.
17
Questions A Resolution Must Answer
1. What are the primary drivers that turn environmental degradation into new sources of
conflict or grievance in post-conflict regions?
2. What are the main barriers (political, institutional, financial, and social) that prevent
environmental recovery programmes from being inclusive and conflict-sensitive?
3. How can national recovery plans and international support frameworks (UNDP Country
Programmes, Peacebuilding Fund, GEF, Green Climate Fund, etc.) be redesigned to
explicitly link environmental restoration with social cohesion outcomes?
4. How can existing UNDP tools and global frameworks (e.g., Crisis Recovery Offer,
Environmental Peacebuilding guidance, HDP Nexus, Post-Conflict Needs Assessments)
be better implemented or expanded to prioritise inclusive green recovery?
5. How can proposed solutions be made genuinely intersectional—ensuring that women,
youth, indigenous peoples, ethnic/religious minorities, persons with disabilities,
LGBTIQ+ individuals, and displaced populations are not only included but actively lead
in design and benefit-sharing?
6. What types of livelihoods, psychosocial support, and community dialogue mechanisms
should be prioritised when environmental projects (reforestation, mine clearance,
watershed rehabilitation, renewable energy) are used as platforms for reconciliation and
trust-building?
7. How can collaboration with local civil society, community-based organisations,
indigenous authorities, women’s groups, youth networks, and ex-combatant associations
18
be institutionalised to ensure local ownership and sustainability of environmental
recovery initiatives?
8. What new or strengthened national policies, laws, and institutions (e.g., inclusive natural
resource governance bodies, land tenure reform, community forestry laws, transitional
justice mechanisms that recognise environmental harm) should every post-conflict
country adopt to prevent relapse and guarantee equitable, sustainable recovery?
Bloc Positons
1. Western Bloc (EU countries, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Norway,
Switzerland, UK) ‘
The Western bloc consistently champions human-rights-based, climate-justice, and
conflict-sensitive approaches to post-conflict recovery. They insist that environmental
programming must explicitly apply “Leave No One Behind” principles, with strong
gender, youth, indigenous, and minority inclusion quotas. They push for integration of
the triple nexus (Humanitarian–Development–Peace), free prior and informed consent
(FPIC), transparent benefit-sharing mechanisms, and the use of disaggregated data. This
bloc is the main driver behind “build back better and greener” language and favors tying
recovery funding to social cohesion indicators (e.g., SCORE index) and environmental
peacebuilding frameworks. They often propose earmarked contributions and multi-donor
trust funds conditioned on inclusive governance of natural resources. Critics from other
blocs sometimes accuse them of imposing expensive, overly bureaucratic standards that
delay urgent recovery.
Key Example: The EU and Canada led the funding and design of Colombia’s post-
peace-accord “green municipalities” program that trained ex-FARC combatants alongside
indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities in reforestation and sustainable cocoa.
19
2. Conservative/Sovereignty-First Bloc (Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan,
Venezuela, Eritrea)
This bloc prioritizes national sovereignty, rapid infrastructure reconstruction, and state-
led resource management in post-conflict settings. They argue that environmental
recovery must first serve macroeconomic stabilization and energy/food security, and that
social cohesion is best achieved through strong central authority rather than fragmented
community-based approaches. They are wary of external conditionalities, indigenous
land claims that could slow large-scale projects, or language that elevates “traditional
ecological knowledge” above state scientific planning. They resist binding social or
environmental safeguards that might delay Chinese or Russian-backed mining,
hydropower, or transport projects. While they officially support “inclusive” recovery,
they interpret inclusion primarily through representation of the national government and
majority groups, and often oppose explicit minority or indigenous quotas in natural-
resource governance bodies.
Key Example: Russia and China have consistently defended large-scale extractive and
infrastructure projects in Syria and South Sudan, arguing that rapid economic recovery
and state control over resources are the fastest routes to social stability, even when local
communities and minorities protest exclusion or environmental damage.
20