Environmental peacebuilding (frequently termed environmental peacemaking) examines and advocates environmental protection and cooperation as a factor in creating more peaceful relations. Peacebuilding is both the theory and practice of identifying the conditions that can lead to a sustainable peace between past, current or potential future adversaries. At the most basic level, warfare devastates ecosystems and the livelihoods of those who depend on natural resources, and the anarchy of conflict situations leads to the uncontrolled, destructive exploitation of natural resources. Preventing these impacts allows for an easier movement to a sustainable peace. From a more positive perspective, environmental cooperation can be one of the places where hostile parties can sustain a dialogue, and sustainable development is a prerequisite for a sustainable peace.Carius, A. (2006). Environmental Peacebuilding: Cooperation as an Instrument of Crisis Prevention and Peacebuilding: Conditions for Success and Constraints. The German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development.Halle, S. (Editor). (2009). From Conflict to Peacebuilding: The Role of Natural Resources and Environment. United Nations Environment Programme. Nairobi: Kenya.
Definitions
The study of peacebuilding (a term coined by Galtung, 1975)Galtung, Johan. 1975. "Three approaches to peace: peacekeeping, peacemaking and peacebuilding." In Peace, War and Defence - Essays in Peace Research Vol. 2, 282-304. Copenhagen: Christian Ejlers. develops from interest in identifying the conditions that lead beyond a temporary cessation of violence to sustainable processes of conflict management and mutual cooperation between those who have previously been adversaries or might engage in destructive conflicts in the future. As envisioned by key thinkers such as Galtung or Lederach, peacebuilding refers to a comprehensive and long-term transformation of a conflict situation towards negative and eventually positive forms of peace.Lederach, John Paul. Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies (Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press) 1997. Beginning with Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali promoting An Agenda for Peace in 1992,UN Secretary-General. 1992. "An Agenda for peace: preventive diplomacy, peacemaking and peace-keeping." UN Doc. A/47/277. June 17. the United Nations adopted the language of post-conflict peacebuilding and developed programs based on it.
Recent studies have identified two dominant perspectives: the cooperation perspective is driven by the potential of environmental cooperation to contribute to peace through spillover effects. This perspective focuses primarily on the interstate level and often on conflict prevention rather than post-conflict peacebuilding. In contrast, the resource risk perspective recognizes resource-induced instability, especially after intrastate conflicts, and stresses the need to mitigate these risks to sustain the absence of violence (negative peace), through facilitating environmental cooperation.
The exact definition of environmental peacebuilding varies between different academic and policy documents, and the term is often used interchangeably with concepts like environmental peacemaking, disaster diplomacy or peace ecology. One literature review, published in 2018, suggests that environmental peacebuilding could be used to refer to "all forms of cooperation on environmental issues between distinct social groups, which aim at and/or achieve creating less violent and more peaceful relations between these groups." In this context, peace is explicitly understood to refer to negative forms of peace (absence of violence) as well as to positive forms of peace (social justice and the inconceivability of violent conflict). In a similar vein, Krampe and Swain suggest that "environmental peacebuilding can be defined as the sustainable management of natural resources to prevent conflict and build peace—before, during, or after conflict—emphasizing the potential for environmental cooperation to support peace and stability."
The Environmental Peacebuilding Association uses the following definition: "Environmental peacebuilding integrates natural resource management in conflict prevention, mitigation, resolution, and recovery to build resilience in communities affected by conflict." In 2021, several leading scholars and leaders of the Environmental Peacebuilding Association proposed the following definition: "environmental peacebuilding comprises the multiple approaches and pathways by which the management of environmental issues is integrated in and can support conflict prevention, mitigation, resolution and recovery." This definition has since been widely adopted.
Mechanisms
Environmental peacebuilding can result from unilateral efforts or from cooperation between two adversarial parties. Actors such as international donors, governments or the civil society might work on their own or engage with other stakeholders to resolve environmental and resource management issues that give rise or have the potential to create conflict. These efforts can, intentionally or non-intentionally, result in more peaceful conditions by, for example, increasing trust, encouraging cooperation or creating new interstate institutions (see, as examples, the Nile Basin Initiative or the Mekong River Commission). If water infrastructure is provided in post-war cities, former combatants could receive support to build alternative livelihoods (e.g., land, sees and training for agriculture), or high-value resources (e.g., oil, gas) could be managed to mitigate grievances, environmental destruction and resource curse effects. Since the 1990s, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has placed environmental peacebuilding and conflict on its agenda,UNEP. (2004). Understanding Environment, Conflict, and Cooperation. Nairobi: Kenya. conducted environmental assessments of conflict zones, and has recommended a stronger integration of environmental issues into the work of the UN Peacebuilding Commission.Conca, K., & Wallace, J. (2009). Environment and Peacebuilding in War-torn Societies: Lessons from the UN Environment Programme's Experience with Postconflict Assessment. Global Governance, 15, 4, pp. 185-105.
A 2021 article made effort to develop the theoretical thinking on why environmental peacebuilding would lead to peace. Building on Ken Conca's early work the study suggests three potential mechanisms "through which improved natural resource governance in post-conflict contexts is theorized to have positive effects on peace: (a) the contact hypothesis, whereby the facilitation of intergroup cooperation reduces bias and prejudice; (b) the diffusion of transnational norms, where the introduction of environmental and other good governance norms supports human empowerment and strengthens civil society; and (c) state service provision, where the provision of access to public services addresses the instrumental needs of communities, thereby strengthening their belief in the state."
In their award-winning article, McKenzie F Johnson, Luz A Rodríguez and Manuela Quijano Hoyos distinguish between five key mechanisms through which environmental peacebuilding can work: (1) improving economic development and the livelihoods of people (particularly in politically fragile areas), (2) establishing or strengthening resource management institutions that exert inclusive and transparent governance, (3) building trust and cooperation between (former, current or potential) conflict parties, (4) maintaining a sustainable environment (particularly for resource-dependent groups), and (5) enhancing knowledge, including on environmental conservation and conflict management.
Limits of scholarship While there is a substantial volume of case-based, qualitative research that explores the impacts of specific environmental peacebuilding projects or initiatives (see "Environmental peacebuilding in the Middle East" and "Environmental peacebuilding in other world regions" below), there are less large-N, statistical studies available on this topic which renders it more difficult to robustly determine that such environmental peacebuilding initiatives are the direct causes, rather than outcomes, of more peaceful interstate relations. The few large-N available studies indicate that transnational conservation and international water cooperation can contribute to peacebuilding.
Environmental peacebuilding in the Middle East
The 1991 Madrid Conference, co-sponsored by the United States and the USSR, brought together representatives of the governments of Israel, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan, and a Palestinian delegation within the Jordanian delegation. The conference established working groups on refugees, regional security, economic development, water, and environment. The working groups on water and environment, and to some extent the one on economic development as well, had the agenda of bringing environmental cooperation and sustainable development into the formulation of a path to a sustainable Middle East peace.
The subsequent Oslo Accords between Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organization and the Peace treaty between Jordan and Israel each had sections that envisioned joint committees on water, environmental cooperation and economic development. When negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority stalled and relations again became strongly adversarial, progress towards cooperation on water, the environment and sustainable development also stalled. At the formal level there are contacts across adversarial lines between government officials and experts, water infrastructure was kept out of the violence of the Second Intifadah, and there is some degree of cooperation – not widely publicized - on urgent water and environmental concerns. Cooperative relations between Jordan and Israel have been maintained but progress is limited by the effects of the unresolved Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
Diplomatic work on environmental peacebuilding in the region has been supplemented by the development of a small network of civil society organizations that promote and practice regional environmental cooperation.Schoenfeld, Stuart. 2010. "Environment and Human Security in the Eastern Mediterranean: Regional Environmentalism in the Reframing of Palestinian-Israeli-Jordanian Relations" in P. H. Liotta, David Mouat, Judith Lancaster, Bill Kepner and David Smith, eds. Achieving Environmental Security: Ecosystem Services and Human Welfare. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Kramer, A. (2008). Regional Water Cooperation and Peacebuilding in the Middle East. Adelphi Research, Initiative For Peace. Hamas' massacre of Israeli on 7 October 2023 and the subsequent Israeli invasion of Gaza have seriously hampered the prospects of environmental peacebuilding in the region.
Organizations involved in environmental peacebuilding in the Middle East Israel-Palestine Center for Research and Information IPCRI opened in 1989 during the first Intifada under joint Israeli and Palestinian directors. IPCRI established the Water and Environment division in 1992. A 1993 edited book presented Palestinian and Israeli perspectives on water cooperation. Three IPCRI workshops held between 1994 and 1996 on "Our Shared Environment" were followed by three volumes of papers from the workshops. The IPCRI Water and Environment division took the lead in organizing a 2004 Israeli-Palestinian International "Water for Life" Conference, co-chaired by Israeli and Palestinian professors, held in Turkey, where over five days about 130 participants from the region were joined by about 50 international water experts.