Environmental peacebuilding: Towards a theoretical framework
| Author | Anaïs Dresse,Dimitrios Zikos,Itay Fischhendler,Jonas Østergaard Nielsen |
| Date | 01 March 2019 |
| Published date | 01 March 2019 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0010836718808331 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836718808331
Cooperation and Conflict
2019, Vol. 54(1) 99 –119
© The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0010836718808331
journals.sagepub.com/home/cac
Environmental peacebuilding:
Towards a theoretical
framework
Anaïs Dresse, Itay Fischhendler,
Jonas Østergaard Nielsen
and Dimitrios Zikos
Abstract
Environmental peacebuilding represents a paradigm shift from a nexus of environmental scarcity
to one of environmental peace. It rests on the assumption that the biophysical environment’s
inherent characteristics can act as incentives for cooperation and peace, rather than violence and
competition. Based on this, environmental peacebuilding presents cooperation as a win-win solution
and escape from the zero-sum logic of conflict. However, there is a lack of coherent environmental
peacebuilding framework and evidence corroborating the existence of this environment-peace
nexus. Building on a multidisciplinary literature review, this article examines the evolution of
environmental peacebuilding into an emerging framework. It unpacks the concept and explains
its main building blocks (conditions, mechanisms and outcomes) to develop our understanding of
when, how and why environmental cooperation can serve as a peacebuilding tool. It assembles these
building blocks into three generic trajectories (technical, restorative and sustainable environmental
peacebuilding), each characterised according to their own causality, drivers and prerequisites, and
illustrated with concrete examples. Finally, this article draws attention to the remaining theoretical
gaps in the environmental peacebuilding literature, and lays the foundations for an environmental
peacebuilding research agenda that clarifies if and how environmental cooperation can spill over
across borders, sectors and scales towards sustainable peace.
Keywords
Environmental cooperation, environmental peacebuilding, sustainable development, violent conflict
Introduction
Environmental issues were first identified as a potential cause of violent conflict by the
1987 United Nations (UN) report “Our Common Future” (Brundtland Report). Since
Corresponding author:
Anaïs Dresse, Department of Geography (IRI THESys), Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Unter den Linden 6,
10099 Berlin, Germany.
Email: anais.dresse@hu-berlin.de
808331CAC0010.1177/0010836718808331Cooperation and ConflictDresse et al.
research-article2018
Article
100 Cooperation and Conflict 54(1)
then, a growing body of academic literature has examined the causal links between a
conflict’s onset, duration and intensity on one side, and resource scarcity – or abundance
– on the other (Baechler, 1999; Collier and Hoeffler, 2012; De Soysa, 2006; Homer-
Dixon, 1999). From the early 2000s on, interdisciplinary literature challenging the envi-
ronment-conflict nexus has shifted focus from resource scarcity to interdependence and
sustainable development, viewing environmental challenges as an incentive for trans-
boundary cooperation rather than a cause for violent conflict (Brauch, 2009; Hagmann,
2005; Harari, 2008; Wolf, 2007). Initially termed “environmental peacemaking” (Conca
and Dabelko, 2002), this approach focusing on shared natural resources as a conflict
resolution tool has since developed into a transformative framework that encompasses
conflict prevention and post-conflict peacebuilding (Dresse et al., 2016).
Considering the multiplicity of actors and the coexistence of conflict and cooperation
at different scales, the environmental peacebuilding literature highlights the transforma-
tive potential of environmental cooperation, but also its contextualised nature (Giordano
et al., 2005; Ide, 2016; Selby, 2013a; Wessels, 2015). Environmental peacebuilding is
based on the hypothesis that the mutual benefits of cooperation outgrow the self-inter-
ested rationale of conflicts and can contribute to the pacification of coupled human–
natural systems in a durable and multifaceted way (Dalton, 2011; Dombrowsky, 2009).
This hypothesis is supported by most non-orthodox economic approaches, nuancing
rational choice as a primary motivation for human action, viewing conflict as not purely
determined by competition but resulting from many factors (Dupuy et al., 2015).
International organisations and policy-makers are also increasingly turning to environ-
mental cooperation as a potential peacebuilding tool to address resource-driven conflicts
and beyond. Environmental peacebuilding is now part of an emerging global research
agenda and a priority area for several international organisations (e.g. Matthew et al.,
2009; United Nations Development Group (UNDG), 2014), representing important
funding opportunities channelled through bilateral agencies or multilateral funds such as
the UN Peacebuilding Fund, the UN-EU Partnership on Natural Resources, Conflict and
Peacebuilding or the United Nations Environment Programme’s Environmental
Cooperation for Peacebuilding Programme.
In spite of a growing interest of researchers and practitioners, demonstrating the
causal linkages between environmental cooperation and peace remains challenging
(Conca, 2001; Dresse et al., 2016; Krampe, 2016b; Waisová, 2015). Several authors
highlight the lack of harmonised framework and empiric data to assess the existence of
an environment-peace nexus (Carius, 2006; Dabelko, 2006; Ide, 2018). The environmen-
tal peacebuilding literature is mainly composed of isolated case studies (Conca and
Dabelko, 2002; Matthew et al., 2009), small-N cross-country comparisons (Carius, 2006;
Waisová, 2015), and fewer attempts at large-N studies which mostly focus on water-
related issues (Grech-Madin et al., 2018; Ide, 2018). Comparative studies are compli-
cated by the multiplicity of contexts and actors involved, as well as the multi-causal
mechanisms that impact environmental peacebuilding (Waisová, 2015). In addition,
terms such as “environment” and “peace” have multifaceted meanings grounded within
a wide array of disciplines such as peace and conflict studies, political ecology, hyd-
ropolitics and institutional and ecological economics (Costanza et al., 2001; Hardin,
2004; Ostrom, 1990, 1992). As a result, environmental peacebuilding failed to evolve
To continue reading
Request your trial