Introduction to the special issue Local Development for Peace and Social Sustainability

The special issue Local Development for Peace and Social Sustainability is focused on the complex relationship between these three concepts, at various levels, taking into account the point of view of the United Nations on Sustainable Development Goals and Human Rights.

The main objective of the Special Issue is to present articles – empirical, theoretical, policy-essays and cases – applying two research methods: quantitative and qualitative.

The fact that the articles have been written by authors – academics, researchers – from different parts of the planet, Latin America, Europe, and Asia, allows for a more global perspective, by exhibiting the different social, cultural, and political diversities of social sustainability and peace for local development. It also takes into account the situation of the COVID-19 pandemic. To achieve this aim, we shall begin by making a theoretical review of these three concepts from a multidimensional and interdisciplinary perspective, respecting the diversity of the different contexts.

During the last 30 years of the Twentieth Century, the discussion of sustainable development was focused on the need to secure a more wholesome natural environment for future generations; yet, it was at the end of the XX century that the international community began to acknowledge the fact that – apart from environmental protection – the central aim had to be the enhancement of human capabilities, together with the improvement of the population’s quality of life. Human development, understood as an equitable and permanent improvement of human quality, was regarded as an end in itself – for the advance of human development, would ensure a more wholesome relationship with the external environment (Anand & Sen, 2000).

Biggeri and Ferrannini (2014) define development as multidimensional, multilevel, and dynamic processes, involving multistakeholder as well as multiple local and extra-local relations; for every local development strategy particularly calls for dialogue, consensus of all the political actors, collaboration from different levels of public administration, as well as from the joint work of public and private sectors (Di Pietro Paolo, 2003). It is crucial to acknowledge that local development does not simply depend on local efforts; effective development trajectories can be pursued only if various levels are involved and aligned toward the achievement of common goals (Biggeri & Ferrannini, 2014).

Juárez Alonso (2013, p. 12, quoting Valdizan, 2007) points out that “local” in the context of development is a dimension that goes beyond geographical territory, for it further refers to a coexistence in a public space that allows for the construction of human relations. In other words, the term local refers to the environment in which people live, and where people interrelate and generate social ties.

Local development is characterized by the fact that it is a process regarded, namely as: human, territorial, multidimensional, integrated, systemic, sustainable, participative, planned, related to social identity, and innovative (Di Pietro Paolo, 2003, p. 22). Silva Lira (2003, pp. 13–15) further described the characteristics of the local development processes by defining them as being of an endogenous nature, basing their strategy on territorial solidarity, and responding to an attempt at collaborative management between public and private representatives, for whom the originality of local experiences consists in allowing them to capitalize and stimulate all the dynamic endogenous elements from an integral perspective, thus generating actions that will eventually become specific features of the aforementioned processes. However, Ricci et al. (2019, p. 8) proposed four main dimensions for a diagnosis of local development: habitat, community and ethos, business, and tourism.

Regarding the concept of social sustainability, it is worth mentioning that it was originally linked to ecological sustainability; moreover, as late as the 1990s, the discussion was focused on two issues: poverty and population growth. Although social sustainability contemplated a series of elements, which aimed at improving quality of life, democracy, and human rights, it did not seem to be concerned with social-property relations or resource appropriation, or even the relations of production (Folladori, 2002, pp. 625–627). Crabtree and Gasper (2020) suggest that these are important issues to examine with a capability lens. Anand and Sen (2000) specifically state that

“[s]ustainability is a matter of distributional equity in a very broad sense, that is, of sharing the capacity for wellbeing between present people and future people in an acceptable way, that is, in a way which neither the present generation nor the future generations can readily reject” (Anand & Sen, 2000, p. 2038).

One of the most important elements of the concept of social sustainability is that of social participation.

Participation is the right to be part of political decisions that affect life; it must therefore be a free, significant, and complete right (Thede, 2009, p. 114). “From our point of view, the essential concept of participation lies in joint decision-making, which implies distribution of power, rather than simply acting together” (Tonon, 2020, p. 411).

Social participation is an indicator of democratic freedoms, of equity in decisions, being a decisive element in the enhancement of productive efforts (Folladori, 2002, p. 631). Stiglitz (1999) referred to the role of social participation as an end in itself, and not just as a means to increase economic growth; and added that “the term participatory processes refers not just to those processes by which decisions are made in national governments, but also to processes used at local and provincial levels, at the workplace, and in capital markets” (Stiglitz, 2002, p. 165). “Open, transparent, and participatory processes are important ingredients in the development transformations, both for sustainable economic development and for social development – which should be viewed as an end in itself and as a means to more rapid economic growth” (Stiglitz, 2002, p. 175).

Biggeri and Ferrannini (2014) expressed that sustainable human development mostly occurs at a local level – i.e. in relatively small and locally-specific contexts, and such local contexts have to be understood and taken into account if development is to occur.

Finally, the third concept implied in this Special Issue is that of sustainable peace and, when referring to it, we must first make plain that the field of Peace Studies has moved beyond the narrow understanding of peace as the mere absence of war and direct violence, to a recognition that peace is a separate concept in its own right (Nowak et al., 2012, p. 267).

The term sustainable peace, as currently understood in the field of peace research, is based on dynamical properties rather than on stability. So, whereas sustained peace refers to the history of relations in a social system, sustainable peace describes properties that provide for a peaceful future. The notion of sustainable peace goes beyond the notion of stability, referring instead to dynamic properties of constantly evolving adaptive social systems (Nowak et al., 2012, pp. 268–269).

The keys to building and sustaining peace consist in establishing cooperative relationships among relevant parties and making sure that the relevant parties engage in ongoing cooperative efforts in order to achieve mutual goals. The term “sustain” is used both in the sense of making something continue to exist and to keep something going with emotional and moral support. Cooperation is both the goal of peace and of the process that sustains it, i.e. providing peace through nourishment or the satisfaction of the necessities of life (Johnson et al., 2012, p. 15)

Sustainable peace requires parties to work together, so as to deal constructively with their conflicts. This means that people need to negotiate, on a daily basis, over differences that arise in the families, organizations, and in the international context. Negotiation is not the only form of conflict management, but it is a necessary component of practically all approaches to conflict management (Shapiro, 2012, p. 86).

On the basis of the above mentioned, we may visualize the way in which these three concepts share the idea of collaboration among different actors, as well as the idea of a common objective, which is the reason why the six papers that form part of this Special Issue deal with each and every one of these guiding concepts.

The first article by Helena Marujo proposes an approach to peace in Portugal, by attending SDG16-17. It is a pilot qualitative study aimed at promoting and evaluating participation, empowerment, and local community network, through a community project, by using the method of Public Auditions as a relevant process to attain positive peace, promote public happiness, and activate public policies at a local level. In terms of governance, sustainable improvement in quality of life and in positive peace should become the focus of all policies. In this sense, the dynamics of community intervention processes, designated as Public Hearings, with its participative methods and local consequences of national policies, are significant opportunities to accomplish democracy, citizenship, and peace.

The second article by Karen van Zaal, Mary Rose O’Brien, and Patrick Guyer studies the impact of conflicts and widespread internal displacement in Myanmar, which constrained the progress toward achieving Sustainable Development Goals. It discusses both the current and historical context of the conflict in Myanmar – where the tensions between different groups of displaced people have become long-lasting – by proposing a program aimed at contributing to peace, security, stability, and sustainable development. It also reviews the determinants of contact between people who are internally displaced and those who are not, as well as participation in community-level peacebuilding initiatives, among people living in conflict-affected communities in Kachin states and North Shan states. It concludes with a discussion of the findings and recommendations for development, humanitarian relief, and peacebuilding projects on how activities can best support peaceful intergroup interactions as well as engagement with peacebuilding initiatives, which may require different motivators and serve different ends.

The third article, by Cornelia Walther, analyzes the dimensions that underpin individual and collective experience, in the society that emerged from COVID-19, considering the social transformation as the first and final layers that condition the localization not only of aid but of the empowerment that embraces aid workers and beneficiaries. This article proposes a new paradigm to provide the theoretical basis of a different approach on international aid in a post COVID world, providing a set of recommendations for the way forward, aimed at individuals, institutions, countries, and supra-national organizations such as the United Nations.

The fourth article by Gulnoza Usmonova & Deniza Alieva proposes Community-Based Tourism (CBT); its main purpose being the analysis of the general benefits that the community can obtain or perceive, as well as those obtained from tourism. CBT can be used as a powerful tool to improve people’s livelihoods and to fight poverty in Central Asia. This research study presents a review of CBT as a concept while providing data collected in the field on stakeholder perceptions of CBT sustainability, which has helped to determine long-term goals for sustainability planning and suggest a strategy for the development of sustainable tourism that the government could well implement.

The fifth article presents the case of the Youth Olympic Games – Buenos Aires 2018, Argentina, as an initiative for local development and for the promotion of values in pursuit of sustainability. The international community has made an early recognition of sport as a means to achieve peaceful coexistence and promote healthy lifestyles. In this sense, the United Nations work to promote – among the Member States – sports initiatives that allow synergy with the goals proposed in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, paying special attention to the contribution of sports practices in coping with: alleviation of poverty, improvement on universal education, achievement of gender equality, prevention of diseases, commitment to environmental sustainability, guarantee of peace, and achievement of peaceful resolution of conflicts.

The sixth article by Celeste Molpeceres, Mara De Rito, María Laura Zulaica, and Claudia Mikkelsen proposes a new alternative to the conventional agricultural production model in Argentina – which has begun to be adapted locally – focused on practices that promote the maintenance of ecological bases, the well-being of society, and individual and collective peace. It offers possible solutions toward the achievement of the goals set out in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) specified in the 2030 Agenda, in particular those related to SDG 2 (Hunger 0) and SDG 12 (Responsible Production and Consumption). This article explores alternative proposals for extensive agricultural and horticultural farming, inquiring about the continuities, controversies, and conflicts generated by their coexistence, and promoting the maintenance of ecological foundations, the well-being of society, and individual and collective peace.

I wish to thank the authors whose participation through their articles has made this Special Issue possible. They have enriched the content of this publication, with a variety of outlooks, situations, and geographical places.

To conclude, it is important to note that if we consider that the concept of sustainability encompasses different perspectives such as ecological, economic, sociocultural, and political (Guimarães, 2003), then and following Tran (2016), we will understand sustainable development as a process of integration, interaction, and synergistic coevolution between the economic, social, physical, and environmental subsystems that can guarantee the well-being of the population while maintaining a balance with the environment.

SDG 11 seeks to “make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable,” and in this context, the sociocultural dimension of sustainability plays a preponderant role, as does the concept of sustainable peace, which refers to the dynamic properties of adaptive social systems in constant evolution.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).