Governance in post-conflict scenarios: assessing models of community-based governance in the departments of Caquetá and Cesar (Colombia)

ABSTRACT Local and environmental governance is crucial for contending with the complex problems of land-use systems and socio-ecological conflicts that bedevil progress toward sustainable development. The community-based governance (CBG) framework is a practical instrument designed to identify collective problems, source the appropriate institutions and articulate joint solutions. It uses community perspectives to construct local and environmental governance models. Through a literature review, two expert workshops and 37 applied questionnaires, a bottom-up CBG model that could enhance environmental and local governance in a post-conflict era for two Colombian administrative departments is developed. Strengthening law enforcement, supporting sustainable land-use systems and promoting education are integral to a participatory-led approach to socio-ecological conflict prevention and resolution. The results are instructive for other communities and regions facing persistent conflict.


INTRODUCTION
The notion of governance is complex and its analysis is increasingly important.While it may have started as a product of academic debate on the transformations of state, as well as the analytical and perspective discourse of various international agencies, it now incorporates collective systems and good government (Eufemia, 2020).Alongside numerous characterizations, its manifestation reflects changes in empirical reality about how organizational networks work (Eufemia, 2020;Fosci, 2013;Halsall et al., 2013;Hempel, 1996;Larson & Soto, 2008;Lockwood et al., 2010;Shah, 2006;Williamson, 1996).Here, governance refers to a category of social facts, specifically, the processes of interaction and decision-making among the actors involved in a collective problem that lead to the creation, reinforcement, or reproduction of social norms and institutions (Hufty, 2011;Kettl, 2015).Each society develops its own ways of making decisions and resolving conflicts.
Local and environmental governance models offer perspectives regarding the resolution of socio-ecological conflicts, those occurring over the access, use and management of natural resources (Brinkerhoff, 2007;Davies, 2005;Durant et al., 2017).Within resource-dependent social and economic systems, although vulnerable rural communities depend heavily on biodiversity and ecosystem services for their livelihoods, they often lack equitable access to these resources and are excluded from decision-making processes (López-García et al., 2015).Further, if strong economic pressures favour the accelerated incorporation of natural resources for immediate productive use, then socio-economic inequalities can grow even greater during periods of economic development.In most cases, this is based on external rationality, with subsequent impact on natural and human environments (Eufemia, 2020;Marshall, 2008;Reed & Bruyneel, 2010).As an alternative, strategies based on strengthening trust, implementing community inclusion, increasing public participation and fostering inter-sectorial dialogue are not just key approaches for environmental peacebuilding, social justice and land-use justice, but also for incentivizing long-term investments that protect soils, biodiversity and ecosystem services (Halsall et al., 2013;Ide, 2017;Harwell 2016).
A key way to increase public participation in decision-making processes is by adopting responsible governance mechanisms (Ansell & Torfing, 2016).Many countries have implemented laws, policies, and programmes that reward natural and agricultural resource management models that improve livelihoods, biodiversity and the provision of ecosystem services (Bekele & Kjosavik, 2016;De la Cadena, 2010;Grueso et al., 2003;Massicotte, 2010).In this regard, community-based governance (CBG) models are extremely important for promoting cooperation between different actors, maximizing synergies and minimizing socio-ecological conflicts.These include, among others, bottom-up organizational models, traditional models and self-managed organizations (López-García et al., 2015).
In the last decades and in the socio-economic and political context of Latin America, some examples of bottom-up practices include black communities of the Pacific in Colombia, the representation of social movements, such as La Vía Campesina, across the region, as well as the self-governance and popular participation of indigenous communities in southern Bolivia (Eufemia, 2020;Martinez-Torres & Rosset, 2010).Although these developments represented a crucial step to local empowerment and democratization processes, the literature on CBG models for sustainable use and management of high-value natural resources in post-conflict scenarios remain scarce.
In setting out to fill this gap, our work contributes to existing approaches of science-based governance and analyses, especially those applying and challenging participatory formats and methods for conflict resolution and environmental peacebuilding (Angarita-Baéz et al., 2017;Eufemia et al., 2018;Fontecha-Tirado, 2018;Graser et al., 2020;Launay-Gama, 2006;Ruíz et al., 2011;Zuluaga & Morales, 2014;Koff et al., 2017).De facto, interdisciplinary research incorporating socio-economic and political perspectives as important determinants of value is critical not just for policymaking, but also for community-participation in decision-making scenarios (Chaikumbung et al., 2019;Eufemia et al., 2018;Schulz et al., 2019;Zurbriggen, 2011).The processes underlying the governance relationships in different societies requires wide knowledge about the institutional and operational structure of the state and, more generally, of society.For instance, in Colombia, critical socio-economic studies have broadened beyond the analysis of agrarian conflicts, political violence and armed violence to issues of state-building and respective institutional processes, organizational networks, and apparatus (Coles, 2020;Corrales et al., 2019;Launay-Gama, 2006;Restrepo & Anton Clavé, 2019;Sierra et al., 2017).Yet, within a complex scenario of peacebuilding, an essential ingredient for sustainable development is stable and participatory local governance (Brinkerhoff, 2007;Hohe, 2004;Morales, 2017).As formal and informal institutions are the main prescription for repetitive interactions in governance and self-government assets, CBG models help identify key factors for participatory approaches (Eufemia et al., 2020b;Ostrom, 2005).Moreover, decentralized environmental and local governance models, especially those addressing cultures and traditional institutions, are considered prerequisites for sustainable development (Azamar Alonso & Ponce Sánchez, 2015;Bekele & Kjosavik, 2016;Holman, 2009;Ostrom, 1990;Ribot, 2003;Steelman & Carmin, 1998;Pinel et al., 2018).While weak governance is often acknowledged as a contributor to conflict, significant academic literature highlights the importance of restructured and local forms of governance in establishing peace (Brinkerhoff, 2007;De Castro et al., 2016;Holman, 2009;Leonardsson & Rudd, 2015;Milliken & Krause, 2002;Morales, 2017;Nichols et al., 2011).To reform processes of local and environmental governance through the lenses of community perspectives on a political, economic and social basis can help mitigate both internal and external adversities.
The main aim of this work is to identify shortcomings that can be addressed to improve local participation in planning, research, development, management and formulation of governance mechanisms in the departments of Caquetá and Cesar, Colombia, by using the CBG conceptual framework.Therefore, this research asks: . What are the key elements to improve local participation in planning, research, development, management and formulation of governance mechanisms in the case studies in Colombia? .How they can be better integrated in a CBG model?From this, we develop a context-adapted, bottom-up CBG model, suggesting key fields of improvement with a specific focus on socio-ecological conflict prevention and resolution as well as enhancing environmental and local governance in post-conflict scenarios.

Description of the study areas
This case study is carried out in two Colombian departments: Caquetá and Cesar (Figure 1).Investigating factors that influence environmental and local governance is challenging.In a post-conflict situation, the complexity of governance analysis increases, as resource-dependent economies struggle to balance weak democratization processes of political regimes with the transition from state-centric development to a global market-centred one (Brand et al., 2016;De Castro et al., 2016;Zurbriggen, 2011).Yet, the proposed CBG allows the following comparison, accounting for diverse environmental, political and socio-economic conditions (Eufemia, Schlindwein et al., 2019).
Caquetá is one of the largest departments in the Amazonian region of Colombia, with an area of 88,965 km 2 (Ocampo, 2015).Located in southern Colombia, it spans two major ecosystems: the Andes and the Amazon (Graser et al., 2020).Thanks to its geographical conditions, the department hosts enormous biodiversity of plants and animals, and also sustaining hydrological systems for the Amazon basin (Etter et al., 2006;McClain & Naiman, 2008).The main burden facing its tropical rainforest is increasing large-scale grazing, with cattle ranching as its main land-use economic activity.This development has led to socio-ecological conflicts, mostly linked to the high rates of deforestation (Castro-Nunez et al., 2017;Graser et al., 2020;Hoffmann et al., 2018;Murad & Pearse, 2018).In 2018, about 70,000 ha of forest were lost, making Caquetá the department with the largest deforested area in Colombia (Hansen et al., 2013;Landholm et al., 2019).Caquetá was considered a hotspot of the national armed conflict, greatly influenced by the presence and power of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC-EP), as well as drug trafficking and the consequent production of illicit crops (Graser et al., 2020;Niño et al., 2002;Dávalos et al., 2016).By 2017, its socio-economic condition was characterized by high rates of poverty, violence and inequality (Orozco & Rodríguez, 2018).For instance, monetary poverty in the region was 40.1% in 2018, 13.1 percentage points more than the national monetary poverty.The Gini index was 0.479 for the same year (DANE, 2019).The high land concentration in the country and the Amazon is recognized as an incentive for deforestation, where smallholders who do not have access to already settled lands find that clearing the forest is the best option for surviving and claiming legal rights over land (Armenteras et al., 2019).
At 22,905 km², Cesar is one of the smaller Colombian departments, accounting for just 2% of national territory, stretching along the Venezuelan border.Located in the north of the country, it is part of the Caribbean region.The largely plain land is bordered by the Serrenía del Perijá Mountains to the east and the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta range to the north.Its climate, though mainly tropical, is as diverse as its topography.With its many rivers and fertile soils, the land is suitable for a great variety of agricultural activities.These primarily involve extensive cattle ranching, palm oil plantations as well as the production of maize, coffee and rice (Gamarra-Vergara, 2005;Ramírez, 2018).Coal mining is the main economic activity in Cesar, underlying its economic boom in the 2010s (Bonet-Morón et al., 2018;Moreno et al., 2016).Under these land-use systems, however, soil dynamics suffer from the high concentration of intensive use along with fuzzy land tenure structures and widespread corruption, making its use unsustainable over 63% of the department's land (Instituto Geográfico Agustín Codazzi (IGAC), 2016).The main consequences are water scarcity, deforestation and land degradation (IGAC, 2016).In 2016, Cesar had the fourth highest percentage of its area under current socio-ecological and land-use conflicts in Colombia (IGAC, 2016).During the conflict, its geography and resources were the focus of armed groups, especially far right paramilitary and drug trafficking groups (Moreno et al., 2016).Demobilized, units of the United Self-Defence Forces of Colombia (AUC), which dominated the region between 1996 and 2006 and were involved in the mining sector, are still present in the department (Moor & van Sandt, 2014).
The departments of Caquetá and Cesar were selected because of the impacts of socio-ecological conflicts on the situation of uncertain peacebuilding.Although mainly perpetrated by different armed groups (FARC in Caquetá and AUC in Cesar), violence has profoundly affected the development of environmental and local governance (Launay-Gama, 2006;Sánchez & del Mar Palau, 2006).In both regions, local communities have suffered important displacement processes, especially indigenous and campesinos (Peña-Venegas et al., 2009).Besides, decision-making and budgeting processes are centralized in urban areas, having direct impacts on law enforcement and monitoring at the local level, often generating multilevel exclusion (social status, gender, ethnicity, education, etc.) (Eufemia, 2020).Moreover, illegal land grabbing, weak property regimes of land tenure and land speculation have destabilized the democratization processes and sustainable development (e.g., infrastructure, ecotourism, etc.) in both departments (Grajales, 2020;Suarez et al., 2018), harming both human environments and natural resources (hydrological systems and rain forests in Caquetá, and fertile soil in Cesar).For these reasons, weak governance is found in both regions institutional and community-based contexts.In the last decades, hierarchical, often authoritarian, and market-based forms of community and natural resource management have marked the neoliberal agendas of Colombian development (Torres-Gonzáles, 2010).

The methodological framework for CBG design
The CBG framework was the method used to guide the synthesis of collective socio-ecological problems, identifying the institutions for dealing with them, and visualizing joint solutions.The CBG framework focuses on the unique political, economic and social contexts of each respective territory where it is implemented (Eufemia et al., 2020a;Halsall et al., 2013).In the context of this research, CBG helped to develop both the workshops and the questionnaires, not only by organizing data collection, but also by guiding the analysis of results.CBG includes three concepts that support elements of environmental peacebuilding (Ide, 2019;Valenzuela & Caicedo, 2018): decentralization, environmental governance and local governance.The first concept regards transferring political (e.g., introduction of direct elections by municipal governments), financial and administrative resources (e.g., infrastructure, education, health, housing, etc.) from the central government to the subnational institutions.Additionally, it implies recognition of local communities and it involves the promotion of capacity-building and advancement in local democracy and local autonomy (Bardhan, 2002;Rondinelli & Cheema, 1983).The second and third concepts are processes framing institutions, different actors and organizational networks, determining where to make decisions about the use and management of natural resources (Bekele & Kjosavik, 2016;Shah, 2006).By shaping scenarios for decentralized, environmental and local governance, the CBG framework fosters the locals' right to plan, research, develop, manage and formulate strategies for sustainable development.Hence, with these basics, community perspectives not only have the potential to leverage local know-how and promote different forms of social learning, but also represent an important resource for peacebuilding.As presented in Figure 2, the practical approach starts with understanding the current scenario and the three selected perspectivespolitical, economic and socialwhere socio-ecological metabolic processes are situated; then it passes through the suitable institutions to address them, returning to each perspective a visualized, expected scenario.From this, results are developed, forming strategies that, depending on the in-depth analysis and its veracity, can be used for multiple purposes (e.g., local policies or recommendations to local and development agencies, etc.) (Eufemia, Bonatti et al., 2019).

Methods
A three-step methodological approach was adopted.The first step was a literature review (17 science-based studies on governance and peacebuilding).The second step comprised two workshops, one each in Caquetá and Cesar.Lastly, as a third step, we gathered additional data through 37 questionnaires.In total, 121 participants contributed to the development of local strategies.The entire methodology drew upon the CBG framework, incorporating political, economic and social perspectives while using all three steps to construct the formulation of governance mechanisms (Eufemia, Bonatti et al., 2019).Figure 3 shows the methodological process.
. In step 1 we reviewed the literature on environmental and local governance, peacebuilding mechanisms and institutions, and the use and management of high-value natural resources in post-conflict scenarios.The screening of science-based knowledge used online databases (e.g., Science Direct, Google Scholar, Cambridge Journals Online, etc.) and national archives in both English and Spanish, including studies developed from the beginning of the Colombian peace process in 2012 to 2020.Keywords included natural resource use and management, local and environmental governance, post-conflict, violence, environmental peacebuilding, and Colombia.More precisely, the literature review depicted the governance and peacebuilding nexus in Latin America, helping to build this study and connecting it to the broader field of environmental peacebuilding, environmental governance, and local governance (see Appendix A in the supplemental data online).Based on the research, three key relationships were identified that supported our framing of the hypothesis and the methodological approach.The relationships are: (1) governance and environmental peacebuilding, addressing dilemmas of natural resource access, use and management beyond conflicts and describing governance approaches as possible solutions to balance the needs and interests of peace and sustainability; (2) governance of high-value natural resources in post-conflict scenarios, demonstrating how good governance can be a major contributor to preventing and resolving conflicts; and (3) environmental governance and local institutions for stability, combining the experience of community-based organizational networks and of local institutions in order to build a stable and lasting peace.These relationships also helped us validate the application of governance models at different scales as an essential component preventing the materialization of the so-called 'resource curse' (Collier & Hoeffler, 2004) and one of the crucial elements within the practice of environmental peacebuilding.In natural resource-dependent social and economic systems, where conflicts have often deteriorated local institutions, governance becomes a product of national and local debate (Bruch et al., 2016). .Step 2 consisted of two expert workshops, one in each department, using the 'World Café' approach, a conversational process that promotes building trust in personal relationships, constructive dialogue and collaborative learning (Fouché & Light, 2011;Löhr et al., 2020).Of a total of 84 participants, 54 joined the workshop in Florencia, Caquetá, and 30 in Valledupar, Cesar.Both workshops included governmental organizations, local experts in environmental conservation and peacebuilding, representatives of farmers associations, as well as local development agencies and indigenous communities.Each lasted five hours, comprising six practical stages, from introduction to data verification, each with a clear objective and methods, as shown in Table 1.   .To extrapolate further ideas and verify the data obtained through the previous two steps, quantitative surveys were conducted in Caquetá (n = 25), Cesar (n = 9) and in the capital of Colombia, Bogotá (n = 3).The 37 participants were selected using snowball sampling, with questions related to step 2 (Biernacki & Waldorf, 1981).We engaged with them based on their expertise with social, economic, political and environmental issues in the study areas.
Criteria for this study sample included: (1) the presence of work in the areas of study (e.g., a minimum of five years), which we define as 'local thematic expert'; (2) professional career (e.g., working position/responsibilities) and knowledge at the national scale ('national thematic expert'); (3) those who have expertise and work experiences outside Colombia and can offer global perspectives ('global thematic experts'); and (4) a selected group of farmers from the study areas.This sample comprises diverse actors and knowledge areas, covering the complexity of land-use systems and socio-ecological conflicts, as well as spatial scenarios and suggested actions to strengthen peacebuilding.
All interviews and expert workshops were recorded with the permission of the respondents.The questionnaires were developed using an open-source tool for mobile data collection, where data are stored and treated (www.kobotoolbox.org).In order to assess community comparability of the two study departments, the three-step methodological approach was applied equally and within the same field trips.Participants' inclusion and involvement of the strategies developed (e.g., Bonatti et al., 2018) might be an important factor determining the reliability of the implementation of the CBG framework in different contexts and for future applications.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The results and discussion analyse the three-step methodological approach (1-3).While the current scenario addresses perceived problems, the expected scenario describes possible solutions and shortcomings to improve local participation in the context of improved local and environmental governance.Results show that, within a situation of weak governance as described in the current scenarios, three main shortcomings to improve local participation in planning, researching, developing, managing and formulating governance mechanisms should be addressed to resolve socio-ecological problems in the study areas: law enforcement (politics), sustainable land-use systems (economy) and education (society).Our central approach remains the representation of a process (Kettl, 2015), relating concrete approaches to the main focus of resolving potential socio-ecological conflicts.Figure 4 represents the developed context-adapted bottom-up CBG model, suggesting key fields of improvement with a special focus on socio-ecological conflict prevention and resolution, as well as on enhancing environmental and local governance in post-conflict scenarios.

Current scenarios
Tables 2-4 show the main results of the World Café topics (WTs) of the CBG for environmental peacebuilding in Caquetá and Cesar: in Caquetá on natural resource management through landuse systems, and in Cesar on land tenure focused on the property rights and land restitution.The current scenario, based on locals' perspectives on community-based systems, environmental peacebuilding and natural resources (e.g., soil) describes a situation of prevailing weak governance meaning a widespread system of corruption and unlawful behaviour that contributes to increasing negative consequences, including environmental, socio-ecological conflicts, along with social exclusion and poverty (Chaikumbung et al., 2019;Fosci, 2013;;Rose-Ackerman, 2005;Safford, 2012;Schulz et al., 2019).Here, World Café participants ranked the most perceived problems linked to the use and management of natural resources (e.g., the lack of added value and transformation processes of local products), the spaces of participation and representation to interact with decision-makers, politicians and bureaucrats (e.g., municipal rural development councils -CMDR; and community-action boards -JAC) (Velásquez Ospina, 2017) (Table 2), the main drivers of socio-environmental conflicts, including deforestation and corruption, and they offered a view on the related perception of peace (Table 3).Likewise, deforestation and mining are considered to be the most pressing issues for land and soil.While asserting the positive attitude toward agroforestry systems (only in Caquetá), the experts also ranked the main causes of inadequate law implementation (e.g., the case of the Victims and Land Restitution Law, n. 1448), including the lack of psychosocial support for victims of the armed and land-dispossession conflicts (only in Cesar) (Table 4).Table 5 summarizes     .

Chambers of commerce and local industry platforms
.

Municipal rural development councils (CMDR)
. Municipal Committee for Transitional Justice . Unions (e.g., Colombian Livestock Federation) Main actions to promote and consolidate peace (top ranked) . Income generation . Inclusion and participation in decision-making processes . Tools for peaceful conflict resolution . Transitional Justice (reparation, truth, and non-repetition) .

1566
Luca Eufemia et al.TERRITORY, POLITICS, GOVERNANCE more capacity-building of mechanisms for conflict resolution and mediation.Additionally, the majority perceives a tight link between natural resources (use and management) and local culture.
Starting from the synthesis of the current scenario, what develops is a multidimensional network of interactions affecting both the perceived problems and their influences on the political, economic and social perspectives (Figure 4).The lack of knowledge or the challenge to enhance knowledge about governance arrangements, as well as natural resource use and management, is tightly linked to the lack of law enforcement (e.g., the case of Law 1448/2011 in Cesar), to the need to ensure multiple flows of knowledge at the local level (Múnera & van Kerkhoff, 2019), as well as to the lack of added value and transformation process of local products.These represent the most frequently perceived problem, involving political, economic and social perspectives in the same way.For instance, the relevance of knowledge sharing about the processes of optimizing the use and management of natural resources (e.g., availability, balance and flow of nutrients, biodiversity conservation, agricultural diversification, water management, etc.) and the creation of added values for local products should be considered at the political and economic levels.To do so, strengthening mechanisms for cooperation and local solidarity, as well as inclusion and participation in decision-making processes, are needed to better evaluate and implement alternatives for sustainable development (Magaña, 2008).In other words, consolidating local knowledge and capacities facilitates addressing and targeting specific political, economic and social contexts.What results is often related to greater incentives given by central governments to large multinational companies, which not only fail to account for ecosystem services and local inclusion (e.g., labour, etc.), but also are not subject to monitoring mechanisms led by the local populations for law implementation, especially in rural contexts where corruption is high (Atapattu, 2018).
In addition, the dominant extractive economic model, the lack of added values and transformation process of local products, the lack of law enforcement (e.g., the case of Law 1448/2011 in Cesar), and potential socio-ecological conflicts (e.g., deforestation-related conflict, unsustainable land-use practices) appear intrinsically related in both departments studied.Their causal variabilities affect challenges and changes happening at the political, economic and social levels.A growing number of regional studies and science-based research, including cases in Colombia, question the links between extractive capital investment and poor law enforcement (Brand et al., 2016;Gudynas, 2009;Landholm et al., 2019;Ramos & Gian, 2013).Yet, while pursuing productive growth solely, these companies are central actors in regional and national development models, affecting the casual relationship between intensive exploitation of natural resources, democracy, violence and human rights violations (Eufemia, Schlindwein et al., 2019;Gudynas, 2009).In this respect, differences between the two case studies mostly highlight that peace is perceived more positively and more present in Caquetá than in Cesar, while the relationship between local culture and natural resources appears stronger in Cesar than in Caquetá.Although further socioeconomic and anthropological analysis is very much needed in this regard, when both natural resources and the environment can be a driver and a solution of socio-ecological conflicts (Graser et al., 2020), governance models for environmental peacebuilding may represent a novel source for local organized resistance to extractivism.
Further, as presented in the results section, the CBG spatial scenario suggests using institutions strongly related to the use and management of natural resources.Local CMDR and JAC are perceived as the two most trustworthy organizations both to facilitate dialogue between different actors as well as to develop strategies for governance and peacebuilding.The main role of the CMDR is the coordination of actions for rural development, building participatory scenarios with the support of local municipal councils.Their work in Caquetá and Cesar deals with education, health and programmes of the Colombian Institute of Family Welfare (ICBF) for the rural sector (Caro, 2015).Similarly, JAC are civic and non-profit community-based organizations, building mechanisms for social management.They are voluntarily initiated by the residents of a municipality, promoting strategies for better welfare and sustainable development (Eufemia, Bonatti et al., 2019).Notwithstanding community claims, there is significant gap between the collective perception of the roles played by these institutions and their actual capacities.Both the CMDR and the JAC have no direct role in decision-making processes regarding the access, use and management of natural resources.Instead, suitable legal bodies, promoting participatory approaches for territorial planning, exist.Examples include local roundtables (e.g., Mesa por la Defensa del Agua, Mesa Forestal, etc.), the territorial councils established by Law 152/1994, and the agrarian planning units proposed in the Law 338/1997 (Gómez López et al., 2007;López Jiménez, 2009).Yet the communities involved in this research do not recognize them.
However, in this study, combining both CMDR and JAC institutional aims may help frame local needs, such as increasing knowledge about sustainable development, as well as identify market opportunities for rural products (e.g., added values and schemes for fair trade labels, etc.), and a better understanding of law implementations on the ground.However, this can only be achieved when the levels of participation, inclusion, trust and commitments are high (Halsall et al., 2013).As for our cases, the perceived capacity of the CMDR and the JAC lay both in the institutionalized arrangements in which they are embedded and in their departmental presence.While it is the task of the central government to regulate and make use of socio-environmental institutions on the ground as well as to prioritize areas where socio-ecological risks related to post-conflict conditions are most severe, it is the responsibility of rural communities and municipalities, under participatory schemes at different scales (e.g., CBG models), to take action and to implement plans (e.g., land-use plans, land restitution programme, etc.) (Morales, 2017).According to studies developed in similar contexts, successful examples where spaces for dialogue are central for sustainable development exist, proving that it is possible (Caro, 2015;Cubides et al., 2018;José et al., 2018;Ochoa et al., 2018;Villalobos Garrido & Henao Guevara, 2019).

Expected scenario
The resulting expected scenarios present the perspective of local experts regarding possible shortcomings of governance mechanisms both to improve local participation as well as to mitigate or prevent socio-ecological conflicts (Tables 2-4).Regarding CBG, the solutions are articulated within political, economic and social spheres suggesting, for example, institutional measures designed to help local producers to achieve better trading conditions, as well as mechanisms for education and capacity-building.Concurrently, experts and participants also recommend mechanisms that support existing initiatives (e.g., the Rural Agricultural Extension Program, payment of ecosystem services, etc.) and enhance specific key dimensions (e.g., culture of peace, governance and inclusive decision-making processes) for environmental peacebuilding (Table 3).Suggested solutions to mitigate the causes of improper land uses (only in Caquetá) and the inadequate law implementation (only in Cesar) (e.g., the case of the Victims and Land Restitution Law, n. 1448) are also presented.Some include the decentralization of administration tools that are able to grant long-term investments in more sustainable land-use management systems (e.g., agroforestry) and mechanisms for better law compliance and monitoring (Table 4).The importance of CBG is also supported by findings from the questionnairebased survey, where the respondents also include the involvement of the CMDR (Republic of Colombia, 1993) and the JAC (Republic of Colombia, 2002).Further, the experts recommended priority actions aimed at preventing or mitigating conflicts, such as mechanisms to increase local income generation, to strengthen transitional justice institutions, and to improve security at the local level.
The analysis of the expected scenario visualizes solutions that are interlinked, thus depicting, albeit to different degrees, the political, economic and social perspectives.The goals behind the solutions is to prevent environmental deterioration (e.g., deforestation, soil degradation, etc.) and social exclusion in decision-making processes from becoming unexpected casualties of fragile peace.The future of the natural resource-dependent social and economic systems may rest on stable governance structures that attend to the interests and needs of local actors (Sandoval et al., 2020).As we find here, institutional arrangements and certification schemes designed to help local producers achieve better trading conditions (e.g., fair trade labels, etc.), education and capacity-building (e.g., gender and youth inclusion in the use and management of natural resources, culture of peace), investments for sustainable agriculture and its practices, as well as law enforcement to increase land tenure security (e.g., strengthening the formal judicial system, end land speculation, etc.) are the solutions linked to all the others, affecting mainly the political and, to some extent, the economic and social perspectives.Future developments must address strategies that can be facilitated by local spaces for dialogue, like departmental roundtables (e.g., Board for Forest Protection and the Board for Water Protection).The lead should be taken by the CMDR and the JAC, promoting regular dialogue between the public sector, the private sector, and civil society.In fact, local stakeholders, pursuing their own interests, are more likely to take part in local and environmental governance processes in order to gain access to, and control over, resources (e.g., mechanisms that increase knowledge of natural resources use and management, etc.) (Bekele & Kjosavik, 2016).The transfer of power, resources and responsibilities to locals promotes collective representation.For this reason, institutional accountability and wide participation are key for inclusive development and community empowerment, building collective decisions based on locals' needs and interests (Hufty, 2011;Reed & Bruyneel, 2010).It also encourages local entrepreneurial capacities in the provision of improved rural products delivery (e.g., added values and schemes for fair trade labels, etc.) (Bekele & Kjosavik, 2016).Our study sample demonstrates that, despite marginal and local differences, this shift is desired.
All interactions presented (e.g., Figure 4) are important to better understand this work governance processes, visualizing spaces for dialogues and inclusive community participation.As it is a model derived from environmental and local governance, the CBG model for Caquetá and Cesar may help prevent conflicts related to environmental deterioration (e.g., deforestation, water access and land access) (Troell & Weinthal, 2014).As a complement, local institutions, such as the CMDR and the JAC, are asked to direct their action toward three main goals: to consolidate dialogue processes in the long run; to develop mechanisms for sustainable development; and to create conditions that both prevent future conflicts and improve livelihoods.As a result, this work shows how socio-ecological conflict resolution and environmental peacebuilding can be achieved through a CBG process that blends together strategies of better and more efficient law enforcement, sustainable land-use systems and inclusive education.

CONCLUSIONS
This comparative work showcases major patterns that often produce socio-ecological conflicts (e.g., unsustainable land uses, drug trafficking, deforestation, etc.).At the same time, the CBG exercise proves that local communities are willing to engage with the transformation of their territories departments of Caquetá and Cesar, Colombia.
With this study it is possible to conclude that key elements to improve local governance are centred in promoting constant inter-sectorial dialogues and synergies between formal (e.g., government at all scales) and informal institutions (e.g., civil society, private sectors, indigenous communities, etc.) led by trustworthy community-based platforms (e.g., CMDR and JAC).Better participation in decision-making processes can be achieved by centring the dialogues on socio-ecological conflict prevention and resolution through better law enforcement (politics), sustainable land-use systems (economy) and strong educational programmes (society).While addressing governance processes in post-conflict scenarios is a complex task and our development of a bottoms-up model (Figure 4) appears rather simplistic, the departments and local stakeholders involved may welcome novel organizational forms in order to maximize participation in decision-making processes and to prevent socio-ecological conflicts.However, such process may also represent a treat to the institutions and actors that have been growing power with the current unequal power structure.Thus, further empirical studies and applied cases are needed.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
room.An assessment of the distribution and a round of questions is made after each categorization Favourite food: e.g., fish; meat; chicken; vegetarian/vegan Ages: 20-30; 30-40; 40-50; > 50 Sector: 1, Non-governmental organization (NGO); 2, academia; 3, public sector; 4questions per group are presented for each panels of the WT (d) Rotating groups are held for 20-30 min each and then rotated to the next group panel and WT (Continued) Figure 4.The context-adapted bottom-up community-based governance (CBG) model: current and expected scenarios, and strategies/results.Source: Adapted structure from Eufemia et al. (2019).

Table 1 .
Stages, objectives and methods combined during the expert workshops.