The Search for Meaning: Why clear definitions make for effective engagement in environmental peacebuilding
art by Shamsia Hassani (Afghanistan)
Elyse Baden (Michigan State University); Anélyse Regelbrugge (Lewis & Clark College); Elsa Barron (The University of Notre Dame); Christianne Zakour
A clear definition of environmental peacebuilding that integrates a deeper recognition of different environmental narratives could make this emerging field more accessible to diverse stakeholders and facilitate long-term engagement towards collaborative environmental solutions.
Context
Defining a concept is paramount to common understanding and collaboration, and environmental peacebuilding[i] is a relatively new field with diverse definitions and interpretations.
The intersection between environment and peacemaking was introduced to the academic world by Ken Conca and Geoff Dabelko in 2002. These scholars were concerned about hyper-securitization, which reinforces the perception of an inherently causal relationship between environmental stressors and conflict and limits the extent to which parties facing an environmental challenge can pursue peaceful, collaborative, and creative solutions. They offered an alternative approach that emphasized the potential for collaborative peace processes and encouraged action on shared natural resources or common environmental threats, as opposed to focusing on the potential for violence that had steered previous conversations.[ii]
Scholars, policymakers, and practitioners often employ different understandings of the phrase “environmental peacebuilding” in their work.[iii] The Environmental Peacebuilding Association defines environmental peacebuilding as “integrat[ing] natural resource management in conflict prevention, mitigation, resolution, and recovery to build resilience in communities affected by conflict.” [iv]Other definitions split environmental peacebuilding strategies into three categories: technical (implementing technical solutions), restorative (rectifying past injustices), and sustainable (equitable resource distribution as a prerequisite for long-term peace).[v]
Furthermore, whereas environmental justice has been popularized on platforms like social media, environmental peacebuilding largely remains within the academic community. Through a universal definition, the goals and methodologies of environmental peacebuilding can become more transparent, which could, in turn, raise awareness among stakeholders and promote peacebuilding efforts. Therefore, there is a need to define “environmental peacebuilding” in a manner that both relates it to and distinguishes it from other fields and addresses the full complexity of the concept. [MOU1]
What’s been done
Several components distinguish environmental peacebuilding from related topics. One is a focus on participatory processes that build towards self-sufficiency or resilience in stakeholder communities. This differentiates it from the field of environmental security, which focuses on the role of governments and militaries in addressing environmental issues.
Environmental peacebuilding is also distinct from the field of environmental justice in its goals and scope. Environmental justice focuses on equitable and inclusive “development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.”[vi] In contrast, the field of environmental peacebuilding emphasizes collaborative solutions to and prevention of conflict scenarios.
Effective peacebuilding requires unique approaches to stakeholder engagement that account for the sensitivity of the individual. One such approach, known as environmental narrative analysis, as described by both William Cronon and Leila Harris, highlights how identifying and accounting for personal and community narratives can enable environmental peacebuilders to better facilitate cooperation towards positive environmental and social outcomes tailored to unique contexts.[vii],[viii]
By creating and using a new paradigm that recognizes these aspects of environmental peacebuilding, we can effectively respond to criticisms of the field, such as those presented by Tobias Ide.[ix] Ide has identified six adverse effects of environmental peacebuilding projects that fail to adequately respond to the nuances of local, case-specific context: depoliticization, displacement, discrimination, deterioration into conflict, delegitimization of the state, and degradation of the environment. An increased emphasis on participatory processes, stakeholder engagement, and situation-based conflict management could help mediate these concerns and increase the accessibility and credibility of the field.[x]
Looking ahead
Those involved in environmental peacebuilding initiatives should expand efforts to distinguish environmental peacebuilding as a functional term for a field that is both highly interdisciplinary and fundamentally distinct from related fields[MOU2] . Such a definition will help clarify the goals of those in the field, create opportunities for collaboration (e.g., with the fields of environmental security and environmental justice), and raise awareness of the role that environmental solutions can play in conflict management.
Stakeholder involvement is vital to environmental peacebuilding. Practitioners can facilitate broad participation in environmental peacebuilding projects by accounting for unique methodologies, including environmental narrative analysis. Attention to narratives can illuminate participant views of environmental issues in conflict situations – perspectives that can guide future peacebuilding initiatives. All this merits further research and real-world application.
A definition of environmental peacebuilding that incorporates these methodologies will facilitate participatory processes while recognizing stakeholder differences; such a definition can also be adapted to pre-conflict, conflict, and post-conflict scenarios.
Footnotes
[i] Environmental peacebuilding has also been referred to as environmental peacemaking, and the two terms are generally seen as interchangeable. The connection between the terms was discussed by Tobias Ide. (Ide, T. (2019) ‘The Impact of Environmental Cooperation on Peacemaking: Definitions, Mechanisms, and Empirical Evidence’, International Studies Review, 21 (3): 327–346. https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viy014)
[ii] Conca, K. and Dabelko, G.D. (2003) Environmental Peacemaking, Woodrow Wilson Center Press.
[iii] A forum on ResearchGate (https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can-anyone-recommend-a-text-with-a-definition-for-the-concept-of-environmental-peacebuilding) provides one example of the confusion that surrounds the precise definition of environmental peacebuilding.
[iv] Accessible from the “About Environmental Peacebuilding“ section of the Environmental Peacebuilding Association’s website (https://www.environmentalpeacebuilding.org/about/)
[v]Dresse, A., Fischhendler, I., Nielsen, J.O. and Zikos, D. (2019) ‘Environmental Peacebuilding: Towards a Theoretical Framework’, Cooperation and Conflict, 54 (1): 99-119.
[vi] EPA (2021) Environmental Justice, Environmental Protection Agency (www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice)
[vii] Harris, L.M. (2009) ‘Contested Sustainabilities: Assessing Narratives of Environmental Change in Southeastern Turkey,’ Local Environment 14 (8): 699–720. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549830903096452
[viii] Cronon, W. (1992) ‘A Place for Stories: Nature, History, and Narrative’, The Journal of American History 78(4): 1347–76.
[ix] Ide, T. (2022) ‘The Dark Side of Environmental Peacebuilding’, White Paper on the Future of Environmental Peacebuilding
[x] This conclusion is based upon the observations of the authors of this submission, and may be substantiated at least in part by examining the numerous reoccurrences of themes such as “local knowledge” and “participatory approaches” in the recent archived events of the Environmental Peacebuilding Association’s Events webpage (https://www.environmentalpeacebuilding.org/events/?EventFilter=Archive&start=0).