The past and future(s) of environmental peacebuilding


 Environmental peacebuilding is a rapidly growing field of research and practice at the intersection of environment, conflict, peace and security. Focusing on these linkages is crucial in a time when the environment is a core issue of international politics and the number of armed conflicts remains high. This article introduces a special issue with a particular emphasis on environmental opportunities for building and sustaining peace. We first detail the definitions, theoretical assumptions and intellectual background of environmental peacebuilding. The article then provides context for the special issue by briefly reviewing core findings and debates of the first two generations of environmental peacebuilding research. Finally, we identify knowledge gaps that should be addressed in the next generation of research, and to which the articles in this special issue contribute: bottom-up approaches, gender, conflict-sensitive programming, use of big data and frontier technology, and monitoring and evaluation.

International Affairs 97: 1, 2021 potential for cooperation around mutual interests in shared natural resources, 7 and the links among post-conflict peacebuilding, climate resilience and natural resource management. 8 The particular emphasis on links between the environment and peace (both positive and negative) was a direct response to the perceived limitations of the former dominant focus on the environment's possible roles in the onset of armed conflict. This distinction resonates with broader attempts in IR to avoid an excessive focus on conflict at the expense of peace research. 9 Environmental peacebuilding thus provides a more inclusive framework linking various phases of the conflict life-cycle in an integrated manner. Much of this research challenges unidirectional and at times determinist claims about environment-conflict interlinkages, 10 while recognizing that environmental factors can play an important role in both conflict dynamics and peace processes. Furthermore, environmental peacebuilding not only advances academic debates on the environment, peace and conflict, but also draws on and provides insights for decision-makers striving to achieve a more peaceful and sustainable world. The growth and evolution of knowledge on environmental peacebuilding has been based on and driven by practice and policy action as much as it has been advanced by theory and scholarly research. 11 This article introduces a special issue of International Affairs that advances debates on environmental peacebuilding and provides important insights for both scholars and practitioners. To lay the foundation for the special issue, the remainder of this article discusses core definitions and assumptions of the field, engages with its history and provides an outlook on promising threads for future research. In doing so, it also introduces the articles that make up the special issue.

Definitions and assumptions
Scholars and practitioners continue to use various definitions of environmental peacebuilding; this diversity arises in part from the field's interdisciplinary nature, its broad research area and the diversity of actors involved. Different labels such as environmental peacemaking, ecological diplomacy, science diplomacy and peace ecology further increase this complexity. 12 For the purpose of this special issue, we employ the following definition: environmental peacebuilding comprises the multiple approaches and pathways by which the settlements management of environmental issues is integrated in and can support conflict prevention, mitigation, resolution and recovery. This understanding is more inclusive than many previous definitions, as it covers both the international and domestic arenas, as well as cases in which violent conflict is latent, is active or has happened in the past. 13 While scholars and practitioners have often analysed violent conflict, environmental peacebuilding also applies to social conflict and politically fragile settings on multiple scales. 14 We conceive of peace as a continuum ranging from the temporary cessation of fighting to the unimaginability of destructive conflict. 15 Environmental peacebuilding works along three dimensions: • Security. The inclusive and sustainable management of natural resources can help avoid conflicts about or linked to these resources. Tensions related to land, water, fish and other resources exist in many world regions and can-under unfavourable conditions-turn violent. 16 Similarly, grievances over the inequi- Environmental peacebuilding faces challenges on all three of these dimensions, and peace-enhancing effects are far from guaranteed. Indeed, success and failure can often be hard to define. 30 Positive outcomes are especially difficult to achieve if the approaches do not address underlying political tensions, create new exclusions or serve as smokescreens for other interests. 31 The past of environmental peacebuilding Environmental peacebuilding as a distinct research field emerged at the beginning of the twenty-first century, partly as a reaction to the narrow focus and contested findings of the scarcity-and conflict-centred environmental security literature published in the 1990s. 32   and outlined strategies for environment-related conflict prevention. 33 At the same time, the volume edited by Conca and Dabelko advanced the idea that shared environmental problems might serve as entry points for cooperation and eventually peacemaking. 34 The concept of disaster diplomacy was also introduced in the early 2000s to analyse whether disasters provide starting points for dialogue and cooperation between hostile states. 35 Despite thematic overlaps, research on disaster diplomacy developed separately from environmental peacebuilding.
Several features are characteristic of this first generation of environmental peacebuilding research. Thematically, it focused mainly on transboundary water and conservation issues. A seminal contribution on the latter theme was the volume edited by Ali on conservation areas as tools for conflict resolution and trustbuilding-so-called 'peace parks'. 36 At that time, environmental peacebuilding research focused primarily on the international level (conflict and cooperation between states), using case-studies and conceptual work as the main methods. Practitioners played an important role in delivering empirical insights and driving policy initiatives, for instance by the EU, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), national government agencies and NGOs. 37 Although critical approaches are more common in later work, there are some early examples. Duffy and Swatuk, for instance, argued that peace parks are used as instruments for extending state control rather than for building peace or protecting the environment. 38 A second generation of environmental peacebuilding research started to take shape around 2009, with a particular focus on post-conflict settings. This work emerged partly in response to the creation in 2005 of the UN Peacebuilding Commission, 39 and to a concomitant increasing openness on the part of UN bodies and member states to considering the roles that the environment and natural resources might play in post-conflict settings. 40 The 2007 UN Security Council debate on climate change and security was another indicator of these developments. In the subsequent decade, the amount of literature on environmental peacebuilding multiplied, making the field more diverse, multifaceted and reflective.
One notable trend during this period was a turn towards the intrastate level of analysis. This aligned with a broader shift of focus onto intrastate armed conflict 33  and post-civil war peacebuilding in IR and peace and conflict studies. 41 Several studies highlighted the potential and pitfalls of environmental peacebuilding in post-conflict situations. 42 In this context, the term 'environmental peacebuilding' gained currency in relation to related labels such as 'environmental peacemaking'. As the field developed, UNEP facilitated numerous and diverse interactions between practitioners and researchers. 43 Methodological advances responded to the criticism that the field was too deductive and theory-driven, and that theorized claims were backed by insufficient empirical evidence. 44 Several studies skilfully combined field-based methods such as ethnography, participant observation and expert interviews to produce nuanced insights. 45 Large-N quantitative studies showed that environmental cooperation, especially at the international level, tends to reduce conflict risks and facilitates peaceful relations. 46 Critical voices also gained further ground in the debate. Several scholars argued that in practice, environmental peacebuilding often favours technocratic approaches that ignore-and hence depoliticize-unequal power relations. 47 Others found that environmental peacebuilding can serve narrow state or business interests and has little substantial impact on peace. 48 In the overlapping field of water politics, the concept of hydro-hegemony emerged to explore the power dynamics and interests that may be driving seemingly cooperative ventures. 49 The proliferation of literature also led to the emergence of a broad range of new topics in environmental peacebuilding research, including climate change, education, energy, legal dimensions and resilience. 50 Three recent review articles International Affairs 97: 1, 2021 that provide overviews of this burgeoning body of work find moderate evidence that environmental cooperation can contribute to peace, but also show the persistence of significant theoretical and empirical gaps. 51 The expanding literature and the increasingly broad range of topics covered indicate that environmental peacebuilding speaks to and draws on insights from a growing number of research fields. This expansion is at work not only in environment-conflict and climate-conflict studies, but also in peacebuilding research, 52 the literature on governing the commons, 53 political ecology 54 and critical security studies. 55 This integration comes with challenges, however. Engaging in sustained debates with scholars and practitioners from multiple backgrounds using different terminologies and conceptual frameworks is often difficult, especially in an academic world where careers are still strongly shaped by disciplinary benchmarks, and practitioners can easily become stuck in sectoral or bureaucratic compartments.
Recent developments suggest that an emergent third generation of environmental peacebuilding research is poised to increase the field's role as an integrative platform. We see this as a watershed moment, for two reasons. First, environmental peacebuilding is still a rapidly growing field. As an example of that increasing interest, 250 scholars and practitioners from over 40 countries attended the first international conference of the new Environmental Peacebuilding Association Second, scholars are increasingly committed to engaging with practical concerns as well as with interdisciplinary conversations relevant to the topic. Work on natural resource management in post-conflict settings, for instance, is inspired by insights and demand from practitioners, and draws on insights from political science, geography, economics and law, among other fields. 56 The future(s) of environmental peacebuilding The third generation of environmental peacebuilding engages with a multiplicity of topics, methods and debates that have emerged during the past two decades. In the following sections of this introduction, we consider five key topics and considerations that should be central to this third generation of research.

Bottom-up approaches
Research across the environmental peacebuilding spectrum has hitherto focused significantly on top-down leadership by international organizations, highlevel state institutions and (inter-)national NGOs. Examples include the NGO Tearfund's efforts to resolve conflicts over water (security dimension), 57 UNEP's attempts to improve the environmental situation in post-conflict societies (livelihoods and economy dimension), 58 and state elites' initiatives (in cooperation with international supporters) to establish peace parks (political and social dimension). 59 Local communities are frequently successful in managing natural resources and mitigating or managing environmental conflicts. 60 Increasingly, bottom-up approaches have also empowered marginalized and vulnerable communities who lack seats at decision-making tables and suffer from the 'slow violence' of rampant destruction of their livelihoods and ecosystems. 61 If such bottom-up environmental peacebuilding efforts fail-whether owing to local circumstances, misguided or manipulative external involvement, or political interference-the potential consequences often include resource exploitation, livelihood insecurity and communal conflict. Non-state conflict has been the most prevalent form of political violence for decades. 62 Researchers are paying increasing attention to bottom-up, local-level environmental peacebuilding practices, especially in relation to issues of concern for basic human security and livelihoods. 63 In this special issue, the contribution of Ide, Palmer and Barnett introduces tara bandu in post-civil war Timor-Leste as a bottom-up environmental peacebuilding approach. 64 Local communities use this ritual practice to manage natural resources, social conflicts and spiritual relations at the same time. Top-down interventions by the state and international actors, while also providing increased material and International Affairs 97: 1, 2021 ideational support, risk undermining the effectiveness of tara bandu. This case illustrates the gains offered by studying bottom-up environmental peacebuilding in the context of debates around liberal, local and hybrid peacebuilding.
Similarly, Johnson analyses how informal institutions at the local level contribute to peacebuilding in northern Sierra Leone. 65 Using tantalite extraction as an example, she shows how bottom-up approaches and their hybrid interactions with formal state institutions allow locals to defend their claims to mineral rights and manage the associated conflicts. This experience serves as an important counterpoint to widespread assumptions in the international community that informal and hybrid institutions are a threat to peace and need to be replaced by formal regulations.
Huda's contribution investigates grassroots environmental peacebuilding initiatives between India and Bangladesh and between India and Pakistan. 66 These dyads are a particularly challenging context, given the persistent geopolitical conflicts and nationalist projects in the region. Huda demonstrates, however, that youth engagement and tertiary education projects on environmental issues can have a transformative effect on nativist identities. These projects address ideational drivers of conflict in a bottom-up manner and pave the way for future peacebuilding processes.

Gender
Gender is another area that has received insufficient attention in environmental peacebuilding research and practice. Since the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security in 2000, substantially more attention has been focused on women's participation in peace talks and peace agreements. A large body of literature has documented the gendered character of human-environment relationships, including some linked to post-conflict settings. 67 Insights from this work have stressed a range of themes. These include, among others, women's vulnerabilities around access to and control of basic livelihood resources as well as the capabilities that may derive from women's knowledge and 'gatekeeper' status in relation to resource provisioning. 68 A large body of literature documents the dynamics between gender and conflict. Women and men may take on new roles when conflict disrupts the institutionalized division of labour-for example, in the context of gendered patterns of migration. 69

At
International Affairs 97: 1, 2021 the same time, attention is increasingly being devoted to women as agents, not just victims, including in their roles in peacebuilding processes. 70 However, as Fröhlich and Gioli have noted, recognition of the gendered character of both environmental interactions and peace-and-conflict processes 'has yet to be translated into a comprehensive research framework that integrates gender as an analytical category into environmental and conflict research'. 71 Significant challenges to research in this area include the danger of conflating short-term effects with lasting change, tensions between legal reform and actually implemented change, overemphasis on the state in contexts marked by hybridized authority, and the formalized but marginalized character of gender in many peacebuilding processes. Much the same can be said of environmental peacebuilding research.
Dunn and Matthew identify several reasons why use of a gendered lens may offer valuable insights: women are often in frequent, immediate, and unique contact with the natural environment; propelled toward violence when traditional gender roles must be carried out in conflict areas; tied to large-scale resource development in gendered ways; and obligated to develop coping strategies in new, often high-risk environments. 72 They stress in particular the role that gendered forms of knowledge and social networks may play in creating new avenues for dialogue, trust-building and cooperation. At the institutional level, UNEP, in cooperation with other actors, has begun to incorporate a gender lens in its work at the intersection of environment and peacebuilding, as evident in the adoption by its Environment Assembly of a resolution on the topic. 73 The contribution of Yoshida and Céspedes-Báez to this special issue speaks directly to these debates about gender and environmental peacebuilding. 74 On the basis of their research in Colombia, the authors argue for a stronger integration of the Women, Peace and Security agenda with the environmental peacebuilding approach. They make a case for the replacement of the currently dominant law-based, individualistic approach by a broader perspective highlighting the intersections between individuals, communities and ecosystems. Rather than focusing solely on women's vulnerability, such an approach also recognizes women's contributions to sustainability, development and peace.

Conflict-sensitive programming
Environmental peacebuilding also addresses the importance of giving adequate attention to conflict in effective environmental and natural resource programming; that is, of conflict-sensitive programming. 75 Land, forests, water and other natural resources are critical for diverse reasons to multiple constituencies. Yet environmental and development organizations have historically often designed and implemented environmental projects in the same ways in both conflictaffected contexts and those not affected by conflict. While some notable early efforts were made to avoid this mistake, the failure to account for the conflict context can inadvertently generate or renew conflicts. While peacebuilding works 'on' conflict, conflict-sensitive programming works 'in' conflict. 76 The peer-reviewed literature on conflict-sensitive conservation tends to study specific cases. 77 A much larger body of grey literature 78 and institutional policies on conflict-sensitive conservation emphasizes three broad approaches: avoiding aggravating tensions and otherwise trying to avoid harm; reducing the impacts of conflict on conservation efforts; and resolving conservation-related conflicts. 79 Research on conflict-sensitive programming is crucial for two key reasons. First, further enquiry is necessary to gain a better understanding of the ways in which even well-meaning actions (such as establishing a national park, planting trees or drilling water wells) can generate conflict that rapidly escalates into violence. Second, just as it is essential for peacebuilders to understand and incorporate environmental considerations in working to achieve their objectives, it is also essential for conservation and development actors to understand and incorporate conflict considerations to achieve their own objectives. There is a high level of policy demand for conflict-sensitive adaptation to climate change in fragile contexts. 80 In their contribution to this special issue, Vélez-Torres and Lugo-Vivas analyse rural reforms in Colombia after the 2016 peace agreement between the government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia-People's Army International Affairs 97: 1, 2021 (FARC). 81 They identify various missed opportunities for conflict-sensitive policy change and environmental peacebuilding. A poorly designed coca replacement programme, the prioritization of large business interests over small-scale farming and the absence of inclusive land reforms undermine the livelihoods of rural peasants and pave the way for corporate resource-grabbing. Accordingly, the structural inequalities and sense of marginalization that have fuelled previous violent conflicts persist.
Ousseyni Kalilou also focuses on agricultural changes and peacebuilding. In an article based on field observations and expert interviews in Niger, he illustrates how the cultivation of gum arabic trees in the Sahel region facilitates climate change mitigation and peacebuilding. 82 Tree-planting initiatives can improve local infrastructure, livelihoods and community cooperation, which in turn inhibit involuntary migration, local resource conflicts and recruitment by armed groups. To be designed in a conflict-sensitive way, however, projects must include local actors, so as to prevent having little impact on the ground or even exacerbating local tensions.

Use of big data and frontier technology
In the 2000s, academic and practitioner interest emerged in existing and potential roles for big data and frontier technologies (e.g., GIS, artificial intelligence, blockchain) across all three dimensions of environmental peacebuilding. 83 Considerable attention has been focused on the potential for developing more robust early warning systems as the rapid fusion of data becomes easier to achieve, more reliable models are developed to reduce uncertainty and larger numbers of people have reliable access to digital technologies. 84 Before and during conflict, portable technologies such as smartphones are already widely in use for a range of purposes, from describing the conditions of people at risk to monitoring forced displacements and informal settlements. 85 As actors forge peace agreements and establish peacekeeping operations, big data and frontier technologies can increasingly support monitoring activities. 86 Finally, as peacebuilding operations are put in place to support building state and civil society capacity, these technologies can help in formulating data-driven decisions and policies. 87  to be collected, shared and analysed quickly; can be broadly inclusive and easily accessible; can support decision-making in real time; and can help build datasets for future analysis. A related theme is the emerging role of crowdsourcing and 'citizen science' as tools for monitoring compliance. Looking forward, we can imagine big data and frontier technologies playing an important role in integrating local knowledge and needs into larger datasets, facilitating transparency across different scales (local, national, regional, etc.), supporting collective action, and ultimately helping communities to recover effectively from environmental stress and violent conflict. 88 The associated methodological pluralism can also help scholars to check the validity of data on the ground and measure impacts of different interventions, for instance by combining drone observation or remote sensing with ethnographic research.
The use of big data in environmental peacebuilding, however, does face hurdles, requiring urgent attention to both governance and technical challenges. In particular, powerful information and communication technologies can be highly intrusive. Data availability and quality vary widely around the world and reliance on imperfect data can generate a false sense of understanding. Furthermore, systems designed to be inclusive and transparent can also be used to quickly disseminate information that is false or manipulated. 89 Also, the use of such approaches, as indeed of any form of intrusive, large-scale data collection and analysis, carries the risk of creating or exacerbating conflict.
Looking at a current conflict in the Middle East, Sowers and Weinthal underscore the high potential of collecting large amounts of data from various sources. 90 They present and analyse a new dataset recording violence against agricultural, energy, health, transportation and water infrastructure during the civil war in Yemen. The authors document an intense targeting of such civilian infrastructure, in particular since 2017, with considerable negative implications for the environment and human security. This kind of destruction will pose significant challenges to community-based resource management and post-conflict (environmental) peacebuilding.

Monitoring and evaluation
Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) helps us to understand when interventions achieve their objectives, when they do not, and why. Attribution in environmental peacebuilding (and conflict interventions more broadly) has always posed a vexing challenge of matching interventions with outcomes. Developing more sophisticated, consistent and widespread M&E tools will provide accountability International Affairs 97: 1, 2021 and learning for beneficiaries, implementers and funders alike. While there is substantial peer-reviewed literature on M&E for peacebuilding and environmental protection, 91 the literature on M&E for environmental peacebuilding is limited. What does exist tends to analyse post-conflict interventions involving natural resources and multinational collaboration on natural resources management. 92 Quantitative studies may demonstrate broad associations but are unable to assess specific policy interventions. 93 M&E for environmental peacebuilding is complicated by five key challenges: (1) the length of time that has to elapse before the impacts of intervention projects become evident; (2) the multiplicity of actors, which complicates data collection and attribution; (3) the dynamic and often insecure context, characterized by political contention and violence; (4) the lack of treatment and control cases; and (5) the complications that arise from combining the different objectives and metrics used for, respectively, environmental and peacebuilding interventions. The substantial body of learned experience from practitioners can help navigate many of these challenges, but the peer-reviewed literature has yet to capture those experiences systematically.
The existing literature on M&E highlights some noteworthy trends. First, the M&E community has recently begun shifting towards evaluations of contributions (analysing how an intervention contributed to a certain outcome together with many other factors) rather than attribution (attributing an outcome solely to a certain intervention). Second, implementers and funders are increasingly focusing on theories of change, rather than on merely quantitative metrics. 94 At the same time, scholars and practitioners are expressing a growing interest in how big data, geospatial data and frontier technologies can support quantitative approaches to M&E. 95 Fourth, M&E efforts are also shifting towards the use of an adaptive management framework in evaluation, recognizing the complexity and dynamism of environmental peacebuilding. 96 In this special issue, Ankenbrand, Welter and Engwicht illustrate the potential pitfalls of environmental peacebuilding projects. 97 Studying artisanal and smallscale mining formalization as a peacebuilding tool in Liberia and Sierra Leone, the International Affairs 97: 1, 2021 authors recognize a significant shift from a narrow focus on security and governance to a broad approach designed to strengthen local livelihoods. However, their research demonstrates that the positive impacts of mining formalization on livelihoods are often small to negligible. Identifying whether such processes entail business as usual or environmental peacebuilding is an important, yet complicated, task for M&E efforts.
Morales-Muñoz, Löhr, Bonatti, Eufemia and Sieber assess mechanisms through which natural resource management projects can contribute to peacebuilding. 98 By doing so, they provide important insights into key factors not only in M&E efforts, but also in the causal chains connecting environmental cooperation and peacebuilding more widely. In an analysis based on multimethod research on sustainable land-use systems in post-civil war Colombia, they find that creating sustainable livelihoods is the most important aspect of environmental peacebuilding. In addition to this socio-economic dimension, governance as well as conflict transformation and negotiation also play crucial roles.
Finally, Kibaroglu and Sayan remind us that comprehensive peace treaties and the absence of confrontational interactions should not be the only benchmark for evaluating environmental peacebuilding success. 99 Studying cooperation among Turkey, Syria and Iraq in the Euphrates-Tigris basin since the 1960s, the authors introduce the concept of 'imperfect peace'. They illustrate that despite the absence of a basin-wide treaty and the continuous existence of international tensions, environmental cooperation has played a role in easing water-related tensions and bringing the riparian states and communities closer together.

Conclusion
The contributions to this special issue share advances in research on environmental peacebuilding from different countries, across a range of resource sectors, at varying scales and highlighting the role of multiple actors. Many of these cases deal with disaster and humanitarian responses as well as peacebuilding in the aftermath of (often violent) conflict. By doing so, they address important theoretical and empirical gaps and thus advance the third generation of environmental peacebuilding research. In the context of rapid global environmental change and exceptionally high numbers of violent conflicts around the world, 100 such research is of major importance.
Given the time-frame in which they were written, the contributions to this special issue do not assess the COVID-19 pandemic, which will undoubtedly affect environmental peacebuilding programming across all governments, organizations and communities. Many environmental peacebuilding initiatives grapple