M.A. Salih – författare

Nowadays, the environment looms large in the analysis of conflict in developing societies, and the precise role it plays is the subject of an ongoing debate. The de­ bate has moved on from the earlier, but still popular, notions of 'power struggles', 'class struggles' and 'ethnic conflicts', to a perception of conflict as the product of intense group competition for resources. Where the state controls the distribu­ tion of resources, itself inevitably becomes party to conflicts whose bone of con­ tention is access to state power as the most efficient means of gaining access to resources. The resources in question are social (health, education, transportation, communication, recreation, etc. ) and material (land, water, housing, jobs, con­ tracts, licenses, permits, etc. ). In parts of the world, and especially in Africa, di­ minishing resources and authoritarian state rule exacerbate group competition leading to political confrontation. This is the line I have followed in analysing conflict in the Hom of Africa (Markakis, 1987, 1998). Mohamed Salih's first contribution in this volume is to move the debate a step beyond this line, which can be criticized as unduly materialist. He does it by bringing culture into the realm of resources, not only as a resource in itself, but also as the agency that assigns natural resources their value. Culture thus becomes a contextual element in conflict over resources whose value is culturally deter­ mined.

This book is the first of its kind to explore the intricate relationship between liberation movements and environmental struggles in contemporary Africa. It is premised on the question why some movements are called 'environmental' and others 'liberation'. What socioeconomic and political circumstances lead to the making or dissipation of such distinctions? Common among African liberation movements is the promise to offer alternative political order and livlelihood possibilities. The prominence of the environment (land, water, forests, oil, minerals, etc.) in the political objectives of most African liberation movements leads Salih to argue that in Africa - as well, probably, as in other developing countries - the distinction between environmental and liberation struggles is apparently superfluous. Liberation, in this broader perspective, therefore offers and all-encompassing emancipatory political potential that transcends the environment to include the laudable quest to transform the state and the authoritarian institutions of government that sustain it.The book also explains the role of local/international NGO partnerships with African liberation movements in extending humanitarian as well as advocacy support to the victims of state oppression.

The Organization for Social Science Research in Eastern and Southern Africa (OSSREA) is a network of social scientists in the sub-region established in 1980. Its main objectives are to encourage and promote interest; to engage in collaborative research; to facilitate scholarly exchange of ideas and publication between individuals and institutions engaged in the study and research in the social sciences. OSSREA also aims to promote the training of social scientists from the sub-region in the study of and research in the social sciences and to encourage establishment of institutions dedicated to this goal. In pursuance of and consistent with its objectives, OSSREA established a fund to provide research grants and training fellowships to social scientists from the sub-region. Every year OSSREA offers, on a competitive basis, two limited types of research grants: the first on topics related to the social sciences in general and the second on gender issues in particular. The grants assist the social scientists to conduct field research in an eastern or southern African country, society, institutions, sector, or problem area. The objectives of the social science competition are intended to encourage and promote upcoming scholars from the sub-region to conduct research in the social, economic, political or other problems. Moreover, it aims to strengthen and raise the capacity of faculty members and students in field research, and promote the subsequent availability of research fmdings for teaching as well as to inform individuals and institutions.

The Organization for Social Science Research in Eastern and Southern Africa (OSSREA) is a network of social scientists in the sub-region established in 1980. Its main objectives are to encourage and promote interest; to engage in collaborative research; to facilitate scholarly exchange of ideas and publication between individuals and institutions engaged in the study and research in the social sciences. OSSREA also aims to promote the training of social scientists from the sub-region in the study of and research in the social sciences and to encourage establishment of institutions dedicated to this goal. In pursuance of and consistent with its objectives, OSSREA established a fund to provide research grants and training fellowships to social scientists from the sub-region. Every year OSSREA offers, on a competitive basis, two limited types of research grants: the first on topics related to the social sciences in general and the second on gender issues in particular. The grants assist the social scientists to conduct field research in an eastern or southern African country, society, institutions, sector, or problem area. The objectives of the social science competition are intended to encourage and promote upcoming scholars from the sub-region to conduct research in the social, economic, political or other problems. Moreover, it aims to strengthen and raise the capacity of faculty members and students in field research, and promote the subsequent availability of research fmdings for teaching as well as to inform individuals and institutions.

Nowadays, the environment looms large in the analysis of conflict in developing societies, and the precise role it plays is the subject of an ongoing debate. The de­ bate has moved on from the earlier, but still popular, notions of ''power struggles'', ''class struggles'' and ''ethnic conflicts'', to a perception of conflict as the product of intense group competition for resources. Where the state controls the distribu­ tion of resources, itself inevitably becomes party to conflicts whose bone of con­ tention is access to state power as the most efficient means of gaining access to resources. The resources in question are social (health, education, transportation, communication, recreation, etc. ) and material (land, water, housing, jobs, con­ tracts, licenses, permits, etc. ). In parts of the world, and especially in Africa, di­ minishing resources and authoritarian state rule exacerbate group competition leading to political confrontation. This is the line I have followed in analysing conflict in the Hom of Africa (Markakis, 1987, 1998). Mohamed Salih''s first contribution in this volume is to move the debate a step beyond this line, which can be criticized as unduly materialist. He does it by bringing culture into the realm of resources, not only as a resource in itself, but also as the agency that assigns natural resources their value. Culture thus becomes a contextual element in conflict over resources whose value is culturally deter­ mined.

Social and natural scientists are currently obsessed with globalization, but this has not been matched by an equal interest in the societal consequences of local environmental change. Attention has thus been withdrawn from community and locality and transferred to global processes, with an indifference to the reality of those at the receiving end of the social, economic and political problems that globalization create. Local reality is obscured and conditions are imposed that are often insensitive to or even distort local needs, resource management, and production systems. The case studies presented here illustrate how environmental degradation has contributed to the distortion of local institutions and economies, thus denying local communities the right to live in a productive and healthy environment. The contributors highlight the seriousness of the difficulties involved in conflating national policies and local reality, and imposing global policy instruments on local communities. Understandably, the case studies demonstrate that local communities resist putting their faith in environmental policies and plans imposed on them by global or national institutions that often deprive them of access to and control over their local environment.