Research, part of a special feature on The Nature of Peace: Post-Conflict Peacebuilding and its Implications for Environment and Livelihoods

INTRODUCTION

Over the last decade the natural environment or “nature” received increasing attention in peace and conflict studies. This is reflected, for instance, in emerging concepts that seek to bridge peacemaking and consolidation with environmental conservation or ecological restoration such as “sustainable peace” (Swain and Krampe 2011, Krampe 2017), “environmental peacemaking or peacebuilding” (Conca and Dabelko 2002, Soroos 2004, Carius 2006, Conca and Wallace 2009, Akçalı and Antonsich 2009, Waisová 2015, 2023, Bruch et al. 2012, Ide 2017, Krampe et al. 2021; Ide et al. 2023, Davis et al. 2023), “environmental or ecological diplomacy” (Griffin and Ali 2014); “ecological development” (Milburn 2012) or “peace ecology or ecological peace” (Kyrou 2007, Golden 2016, Hsiao and Le Billon 2021, Hsiao 2022, Valencia and Courtheyn 2023). In light of the common use of these and other concepts in academic literature and in practitioners’ circles, we consider it relevant to critically reflect on how - in contexts of conflict transformation and sustainable peace - different understandings of “nature” might have implications for policy proposals and approaches to peacebuilding.

We, therefore, present a conceptual discussion on the diverse understandings and valuations of nature in academic literature at the nexus of peace and environment as well as reflections on the policy implications of such understandings and valuations for sustainable peace from a decolonial approach.

For this, we first discuss our theoretical approach based on a critical and pluralistic understanding of “environment” as “nature” and a decolonial stand on peace. Our views on peace move beyond liberal understandings as absence of violence between peoples to consider peaceful coexistence between humans and non-humans beyond Western modernity (Hsiao and Le Billon 2021, Hsiao 2022, Day et al. 2023, Sunca 2023). We construct our analytical framework using the values framework developed by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Such framework highlights different worldviews, approaches, notions, and conceptualizations of nature’s contribution to human well-being and implications incorporating Indigenous and local systems of knowledge (IPBES 2022, Pascual et al. 2023). Using a pluralistic approach to nature and environment also encompasses other ways of coexistence and presents a decolonial approach to peace.

Based on this framework, we then engage with academic publications that provide empirical and conceptual discussions on the role of nature and environment in peace transformation from diverse regions of the world, centered mainly on intrastate peacebuilding in post-conflict settings. We do so to understand diverse understandings and valuations ascribed to nature and the environment. We then interpret these understandings and valuations of nature in relation to peace and the policy implications for sustainable peace from a decolonial standpoint.

THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Nature and environment in peace studies and policy frameworks

Academic research at the intersection of nature protection, conservation, and peace consolidation has grown over the last decades (Johnson et al. 2021, Ide et al. 2023). Already in the 1990s the first linkages between peace and the environment emerged and Brock (1991), for instance, studied the role of transboundary “peace parks” for peace consolidation during interstate post-conflict. Subsequently, Harbottle (1994) and Homer-Dixon (1999) analyzed the relevance of environmental concerns in human security. Since then, peace and conflict research saw the emergence and consolidation of environmental considerations (protection, cooperation, etc.) in the understanding and promotion of sustainable peace (Kyrou 2007, Krampe 2017, Ide et al. 2023). Today, “environmental peacebuilding” is an established field with its own institutions (e.g., ENPAX), diverse theoretical perspectives and conceptual frameworks (e.g., Dresse et al. 2019, Baden et al. 2022, Ide et al. 2023, Davis et al. 2023).

In general terms, environmental peacebuilding regards cooperation and management of the natural environment (e.g., natural resources, biodiversity, ecosystems) as tools for both conflict resolution and cooperation (Conca and Dabelko 2002, Bruch et al. 2012, Dresse et al. 2016, Ide 2017, Waisová 2017, Ogden 2018). Environmental peacebuilding recognizes the crucial role of the natural environment in fostering cooperation among conflicting parties and development for sustaining peace in post-conflict environments.

Jarraud and Lordos (2012:261) observed that “[t]here are four conceptual relationships between the environment and conflict: the environment as a tool for conflict resolution, or as a source of conflict, environmental damage as a result of conflict, and the creation of de-facto ecological havens in demilitarized zones.” Conceptual relationships between nature and peace move beyond conflict, by focusing on cooperation for conservation (e.g., Waisová 2015), sustainable resource management (e.g., Aoki et al. 2011), resource governance (Guenther 2008, Johnson et al. 2012, Johnson 2017, Krampe and Gignoux 2018) or natural resources’ exploitation for economic growth or market reconstruction (e.g., Rustad and Binningsbø 2012, Perks 2016).

Conca and Beevers (2018) make use of the United Nations Environment Programme’s conceptualization of “risks and opportunities from natural resources and the environment along the peace and security spectrum” (UNEP 2016) to show that diverse approaches to “nature” are relevant when thinking about conflict and peace. In a conflict spectrum from “early warnings,” “peacemaking and mediation,” “peacekeeping,” “peacebuilding” and “sustainable development”: the role of the natural environment varies depending on the focus: conflict or peace. On one hand, a security framework often regards natural resources and the environment as “causing tensions,” “financing conflicts,” “weapons of war,” “damaged by conflicts,” “peace spoiling” and “causing post-conflict tensions.” On the other hand, a peace framework highlights nature and environment as “good resource governance”; “entry point for dialogue,” “economic incentives for peacemaking,” “resource governance cooperation,” “jobs and livelihoods” and “revenues for basic services” (UNEP 2016). In this context, we argue that it is central to approach “nature” in relation to “peace” while at the same time questioning how both are dialectically constructed in the context of power relations and colonial histories.

Critically thinking about nature and environment for sustainable peace: a decolonial approach

We follow a critical understanding of “sustainable peace” advanced by various scholars in recent literature on the environment-peace nexus and beyond from a decolonial approach (e.g., Zondi 2017, Weerawardhana 2018, Rodríguez and Inturias 2018, Rodriguez Iglesias 2019, Day et al. 2023, FitzGerald 2023, Hwang 2023, Sunca 2023, Valencia and Courtheyn 2023). We stand at the junction of peace and conflict studies and the field of political ecology to look into nature or what Le Billon (2018) calls “conflict ecologies,” but we do so through a decolonial approach for a post-anthropocentric peace. We follow Hwang (2023:157-158) who argues that “even within the literature on sustainable peace that emphasizes emancipation from all forms of structural oppression and violence, the human domination and exploitation of nature and non-human beings is rarely considered as an issue of peace. A post-anthropocentric perspective on peace (...) will further extend the meaning of sustainable peace in the Anthropocene.”

We critically approach environment and peace concurring with Görg (2022) who considers that to address the crises of Western civilization, we need to challenge the belief in progress, which, in Western culture, often involves coercion: “mastering of nature,” burdening individuals, and adhering to a perceived natural law of societal development. The idea of mastering nature, central to European history, supports the notion that limitless economic growth and scientific and technical advances are the sole solutions to crises generated by such growth.

According to Kyrou, (2007) a peace ecology paradigm reevaluates the use of the environment as a mere instrument or tool for peace policy and critically posits the narrow view of the problem-solving approach promulgated by the emerging concept of environmental peacemaking. For this author, peace ecology “holistically makes the case for the long-term benefits of an environmental consciousness combined with a peace consciousness instead of an unguided effort at tracing the circumstantial, and amorphous “peace revenues” from individual environmental projects” (Kyrou 2007:79). A central issue in this concept relates to the ontological assumptions of peace and nature. Kyrou (2007:79-80) asserts that “(r)egardless of our individual circumstances, while in conflict or otherwise, we participate in the same basic complex web of interconnected ecological cycles.” From raw materials to inspiration from art and spiritual resources “all originate from the same complex ecological web,” including our sense of place. For the author, epistemic violence or the damage, alteration, or suppression of a culture (ways of knowing and talking about nature, embedded in languages) should be constitutive part of any peace worldview. This type of violence refers to the injustices committed when “traditional” or other-than-scientific knowledge are disregarded as considered “primitive.”

In this context, a conceptual understanding of sustainable peace from a decolonial approach has three major implications. First, with its encompassing perspective on different processes and their interplay, the concept allows us to go beyond a mere problem-solving approach to conflict resolution or incentives for cooperation; instead, it helps us to understand both peace and peacebuilding as process-based, non-linear, multi-dimensional (Lederach 1997), multiscalar and multi species (Kyrou 2007, Hsiao and Le Billon 2021, Hsiao 2022). Second, sustainable peace also assists us to go beyond a liberal understanding of peace, in as much as it moves beyond peace as absence of violence to take into consideration positive peace between humans and other-than-humans. Finally, the concept allows us to shed light on different agencies beyond the nation-state and diverse systems of knowledge beyond expert or scientific ones to show how pluralistic worldviews of nature and peace coexist through everyday practices.

Our decolonial approach is based on understandings from ecological peace and seeks to include analytical types of violence (symbolic, structural, slow, gender) originating from hegemonic worldviews that separate humans as well as humans from nature (heteropatriarchy, state-centric, militarized, scientific, to name a few of oppressive systems of “modernity”). Ecological peace advocates for conviviality and an ethics of coexistence considers different scales and between different “parties in conflict” such as humans and other species (Hsiao and Le Billon 2021, Valencia and Courtheyn 2023).

Rodriguez Iglesias (2019), Cruz (2021), or FitzGerald (2023) critically look into liberal understandings of peace and sketch out a decolonial peace from the situated experience of “the other” (the local, the everyday practices of living and cohabitating in a territory). For Day et al. (2023:1) “liberal peace tends to inform the frameworks that structure the most visible peacebuilding efforts. The decolonial turn has, however, proven specifically useful for critiquing these frameworks. (...) (d)ecolonial peace can reconstitute peacebuilding through different ways of being and knowing that reject the stifling, violence-laden lifeworlds made available by colonial modernity and its liberal undercurrents.”

In conclusion, a decolonial peace approach is useful to understand how certain notions of peace (a) reproduce ideas of progress as the absence of conflict and violence (connected to a liberal peace approach), (b) give a central role to nation-states, (c) confuse and conflate peace with “development” or economic progress,” (d) grant superiority to humans over other-than-humans, (e) values scientific knowledge as the only valid knowledge to transform environments, as well as (f) dismiss the everyday life of people, their worldviews and understandings of nature. Through a decolonial lens we pay close attention to localized and/or Indigenous understandings of peace, justice, harmony, care, and conviviality in the quest for peace.

The IPBES (2022) conceptual framework provides a lens to analyze diverse conceptualizations of nature in peace studies. It acknowledges the central role of worldviews - “ways through which people conceive and interact with the world” and knowledge systems - “bodies of knowledge, practices and beliefs: academic, indigenous, local” - (Pascual et al. 2023:814) and, therefore, permit us to include a pluriversal approach to nature and peace moving from anthropocentric approaches to bio-ecocentric and pluricentric, offering a decolonial approach to peace.

Worldviews, life frames, and values of nature - an analytical framework

Using the IPBES (2022) values framework we distinguish the different ways nature is referred to in studies at the peace-environment nexus. This framework does not focus on the values of nature for peace per se, but for sustainability and well-being in general. Nonetheless, we consider that the typology the framework puts forward is broad enough to incorporate diverse understandings while at the same time allowing us to address “peace” as a central issue in constructing sustainable well-being.

The conceptualizations of values of nature that the IPBES framework established are, among others, the result of diverse knowledge systems across cultures, space and time, and the extent to which people relate directly or indirectly to the environment and their well-being. In this sense then, worldviews are central in the different values of nature (e.g., ontological understandings of nature). IPBES (2022) broadly recognizes three major worldviews: anthropocentric, bio-ecocentric and pluricentric, based on how people understand (intellectually, cognitively) nature and their place (as humans) in it. Anthropocentric worldviews are, according to Pascual et al. (2023:813), centered on human interests, while bio/ecocentric worldviews highlight “living beings or nature’s processes as whole.” Pluricentric worldviews are those “with no single ‘centre’ ” (focusing on several intertwined relationships among humans, other-than-humans, nature’s components and systemic processes).” IPBES (2022:20) clarifies that some of these worldviews are based on a philosophy broadly characterized as “living in harmony with all forms of existence that are considered alive and connected by reciprocal and interdependent relationships.”

Closely connected to this and according to IPBES (2022:18) “[t]he many ways that people relate to nature, which can be organised into generalised modes of living from, in, with and as nature, also reflect their diverse worldviews, knowledge systems, broad and specific values.” These “live frames” are based on overarching worldviews and help to understand embedded values, both broad and specific ones.

Such understandings and values of nature are not mutually exclusive, and “live frames” can be related and combined in different circumstances (contexts). People live from nature when they understand nature as a provider of means and resources to attain their needs (e.g., sustaining livelihoods from resources provided by forests, wetlands, etc.). In a similar vein, living in nature relates to the relevance of the natural environment given by settings where everyday life takes place, where cultural reproduction is possible, and where identity and collective norms and behaviors are constructed. Nature here has a spatial connotation, e.g., the forest as spaces for hunting and gathering as gendered practices of identity formation as hunters, gatherers, males or females. Living from nature or within or outside nature is central to these anthropocentric approaches.

People live with nature when they understand “its life-supporting processes in connection with ‘other-than-humans’ ” (ibid) and therefore value nature in itself (e.g., preserving forests to reproduce species by extending habitats) but as distinctive from people. This biocentric or ecocentric approach allows us to understand when nature is valued beyond its possibilities for commodification (e.g., forest conservation in its own right and not for revenues from tourism).

Finally, people may also see themselves living as part of nature. Therefore, they value nature not only for the possibilities of meeting their immediate needs (e.g., food and shelter) but also for seeing themselves as members or part of something larger than themselves, i.e., they value nature for the mental, and spiritual possibilities it offers (e.g., sacred forests where spirits of ancestors are met, domestic animals for companionship and mutual care). From this perspective, nature and society are one and there is no ontological separation between the two. From a pluricentric worldview we can then think of socionatures.

We argue that these diverse approaches or worldviews people mobilize to give meaning, relate to or interact with the natural world are central for how they may promote sustainable peace. Such meanings and conceptions stem from different types of knowledges and beliefs (cognitive, emotional, experience-based, academic, Indigenous, etc.), broad values (e.g., prosperity, belonging, stewardship, harmony) and specific values (“judgments regarding the importance of nature in specific situations”; Pascual et al. 2023:814). IPBES (2022) typology presents three types of specific values of nature in any particular situation: (a) instrumental, (b) intrinsic, and (c) relational.

Instrumental values regard nature as a provider of means to accomplish something (e.g., natural assets, natural capital, natural resources, ecosystem services) that contribute to meeting people's immediate needs usually understood at an individual level (e.g., food, shelter). Nature is valued for its usefulness to people, it is an asset or resource. Intrinsic values regard nature as valuable in itself, independently of people’s needs (e.g., species habitats, wildlife, biodiversity). The agency of other-than-humans is recognized, the “inherent worth of biodiversity as ends in and of themselves” (Pascual et al. 2023:814). Relational values refer to understandings of nature as conductive to linkages and relationships among peoples and valued for the “desirable, meaningful, and often reciprocal human relations” (e.g., nature as a semiotic system, as spiritual space, as companion, etc., ibid). Some types of values might be connected (e.g., instrumental values might also be directly linked to relational ones, such as when nature is closer to people’s livelihoods) but intrinsic values of nature relate to bio/ecocentric and pluricentric worldviews.

Epistemological and methodological considerations

This study is the result of several years of continuous interdisciplinary conversations between the authors, and among academic and non-academic colleagues studying how nature is incorporated in peace studies.

Our study is motivated by the following questions: how is nature understood and valued in studies at the peace-environment nexus? To what extent are these values of nature reflected or reproduced in global peace policy? What is the role of scientific/academic knowledge in reproducing certain values of nature over others? Who are those subjects producing knowledge that later permeates policy and research and where are they thinking from? Do authors writing at the nexus of peace and environment make themselves present in their texts or assume an objective-distant position? Whose knowledge and understandings of peace and nature matter in global policy frameworks?

These questions guide our engagement with theories and concepts as well as the methods we use, but we will not answer all of them in detail. We approach this article as a conceptual exercise and invite readers into a conversation about the role of nature in sustaining peace from a decolonial approach.

Our materials are academic publications mainly produced from social science published in English and found on Scopus database or through Google Scholars using keywords such as “nature,” “ecology,” “environment” and “peace.” Our search has produced a great diversity of publications which we consider sufficient to give a variety of understandings about the role and value of nature in peacebuilding. We acknowledge that some issues might have been left out (e.g., water, climate change). In this sense, our analysis of the material is conceptual, and we use the literature to provide a broad view on the different ways nature or the natural environment have been conceptualized and/or approached, without asserting which conceptualization has been predominant. We later discuss general policy implications of having different understandings of nature when thinking about sustainable peace from a decolonial approach.

DIVERSE WORLDVIEWS AND VALUES OF NATURE IN PEACE STUDIES: A PRELIMINARY OVERVIEW

One way to address “nature” in studies at the peace-environment nexus is by looking at the impacts of an armed conflict on the natural environment and the repercussions such impacts might have on the post-conflict recovery. Another way to address “nature” relates to the distribution of access and use of natural resources during conflict and post-conflict periods. Finally, studies also bring “nature” into the analysis when framing certain processes, institutions, or issues as “environmental” in a post-conflict setting, where the environment is portrayed as an opportunity conducive for peacebuilding cooperation. These “environmental issues” are merely a conduit for bringing parties in conflict closer to each other, to build trust and decrease animosity. Despite this diversity, there are relatively few studies which define their approach to nature or environment. Sometimes authors use terms, notions or concepts related to “nature” or the natural world interchangeably (e.g., natural environment, ecosystems, natural resources, natural capital, wildlife, biodiversity, ecology, etc.). In this sense, Johnson et al. (2021) observe a similar tendency toward “peace,” noting that “few researchers explicitly articulate how they define peace, how environmental initiatives contribute to peacebuilding, or the fact that environmental peacebuilding initiatives might undermine, rather than enhance, broader peacebuilding objectives” (Johnson et al. 2021:3).

Despite the lack of definitions, once we identified those concepts or terms used by authors in the literature to refer to nature, we drew on the IPBES framework (worldviews, live frames, and specific values) to approach these diverse (implicit) understandings of nature in relation to peace.

Our conceptual analysis on diverse understandings and valuations of nature in relation to peace according to worldviews, live frames, and specific values is synthesized in Table 1. The table shows different values of nature inform, shape, and are reproduced in academic research at the peace-environment nexus. The identification of valuations and their implications are subject to continuous development in the research and practice community, and we invite readers to critically engage with our analysis and interpretation.

Since different values might be presented in the same study, some studies might be exemplary of different worldviews and live frames as well as specific values and are marked in the table. Few studies approach nature from a pluricentric approach, where knowledge and values of local peoples would show how living as nature relates to peace. Empty boxes express the unlikely combinations (e.g., living as nature -pluricentric- with an instrumental valuation or living from nature with an intrinsic valuation).

Anthropocentric views of nature for peace

In this section we look into understandings and values of nature that we considered reproduced an anthropocentric worldview (“living from and living in nature”). These are studies that approach nature for its instrumental and relational role in peace centered on humans (peoples, communities, etc.).

One of the common terms to refer to nature at the peace-environment nexus is “natural resources” or “ecosystem services.” We argue that these notions are often brought in relation to the role of natural resources for economic growth or sustainable development, showcasing a clear instrumental value of nature and liberal understanding of peace (Selby 2013). For example, natural resources are considered important generators of crucial revenues for state reconstruction (e.g., Garrett et al. 2009, Unruh and Shalaby 2012, Zetter and Blitz 2014, Tyner and Will 2015, Beevers 2015, Maconachie 2016), for economic growth and development (e.g., Heupel 2006, Berdal and Mousavizadeh 2010, del Castillo 2014, Millar 2016, Beevers 2016), or for ensuring sustainable exploitation and conservation (e.g., Palmer 2010, Johnson et al. 2012).

Not only tangible elements from the natural world (such as trees, water, or soil) have an instrumental value, but entire ecosystems such as forests (Stevens et al. 2011, Ordway 2015, or Castro-Nunez et al. 2017), wetlands (Griffin and Ali 2014), marshlands (Aoki et al. 2011) or lakes are instrumentally valued in the literature due to the services they provide to people (e.g., clean water or carbon storage). Portraying nature as a provider of resources and/or services to support economic activities (instrumental valuation) or cooperation (relational valuation) emphasizes that “[e]nvironmental governance and natural resource management are key elements of post-conflict recovery, for several reasons. Natural resources are often implicated in conflict, either as a cause of tensions or as a revenue stream that enables or incentivizes continued fighting” (Le Billon 2001 as cited in Kovach and Conca 2016:4).

Along these lines, Dam-de Jong (2013:155) links natural resource exploitation and environmental consequences of war to future economic development arguing that “[t]he environmental degradation caused by predatory resource exploitation by parties to an armed conflict also severely hampers efforts towards the post-conflict reconstruction of a state.” Dam-de Jong (2013:155) continues that “...natural resources are an important engine to restart the economy of a war-torn state after the conflict has come to an end. If the resources are severely degraded or even exhausted as a consequence of their exploitation during armed conflict, it becomes even more difficult to kick-start the economy of a state emerging from conflict.”

While the notion of natural resources might be used in connection to economic growth, state reconstruction, formal markets or economies in general, the concept of natural capital is usually applied when studying livelihoods at local scale, sometimes even in contexts of non-monetized economies (e.g., Zetter and Blitz 2014). Ansoms and McKay (2010:586) use the concept of natural capital and state that agriculture and livestock sectors in post-conflict Rwanda are “primary engines of growth...where natural capital include cultivated land surface by household and owned and borrowed livestock measured in tropical livestock units.” Conversely, Zetter and Blitz (2014:1) mention that “non-monetary value of natural capital is reconceived as commercial use value in post-conflict reconstruction” and caution that such a uniform way of expressing value under changing political, and economic conditions might in turn create conflicts when worldviews do not align. In fact, these authors seek to engage with local valuations of nature beyond the focus on economic value in post-conflict recovery policies. Zetter and Blitz (2014) argue that nature, as capital, can be valued quite differently according to cultural norms and worldviews of local communities and they emphasize the relational value of nature for peace, for instance, by people pooling together diverse capitals and skills to sustain livelihoods (at household or community level).

Related to the this, Aguilar et al. (2015:4) propose an ecological restoration approach in post-conflict Colombia as an instrument to promote and integrate socioeconomic goals (e.g., job creation) in landscape planning through a network that could integrate and expand growing demands of knowledge and skills for scientific, technical, political, and social aspects of restoration. Without specifying ecological restoration in their study, they relate it to “restoring natural and social capital and leveraging change across social and political spectra (...) with local communities, relevant institutions, NGOs, and the international community devoted to the science and practice of ecological restoration” (Aguilar et al. 2015:4-5). Studies that use such understandings of nature (natural resource, ecosystem services, natural capital) do so from an anthropocentric worldview and living from frame which values nature for both its instrumental and relational implications for peacebuilding: a means for livelihoods, trade and economic growth, understanding that these are conducive in the long term to peace providing certain conditions are met (e.g., no conflictive valuation systems, distribution, inclusive development, state institutions, etc.).

There are studies that frame “nature” spatially such as for instance ecosystems (e.g., forests or wetlands) or the natural environment in general. The general approach to the natural environment in the literature seems to be as the biophysical world (not human-built) that surrounds a given community or group under study, though other meanings might be found. We turned here to studies which understandings and values of nature might refer to living in frameworks which, according to Pascual et al. (2023:813) make us think on “how people recognize nature’s importance as settings for their lives, practices and cultures, particularly supporting relational values.”

In the peace-environment literature, authors show the relevance of the natural environment as an object for planning and management in order to meet human needs (e.g., water infrastructure, housing, sustainable agriculture, forestry, biodiversity conservation, etc., e.g., Downdeswell and Hania 2014). In this literature, “place” seems to be more relevant than in studies where nature -as natural resources- are objects of economic valorization. Unfortunately, authors seldom define what they understand by natural environment and whether the use of these terms are based on local understandings and everyday life experiences, academic or conceptual understandings. This relates back to the question of “whose environment are we talking about?”

Downdeswell and Hania (2014: 453) for instance discuss how the natural environment of Iraq was used as a weapon of war (destruction, pollution) and explain that for the U.S. soldiers in Iraq, the natural environment was not “their environment and they did not refrain from executing atrocities against nature in Iraq.” From a peacebuilding perspective however, the effects of conflict on the natural environment (e.g., pollution and degradation) become highly relevant during post-conflict and peacebuilding and could eventually foster new conflicts and violence.

Studies on conservation in conflict and post-conflict usually look into territorial aspects (e.g., reserves, parks) as a conduit of cooperation (relational valuation) or income generation (instrumental valuation). Rotshuizen and Smith (2013) in their study on poachers, rangers, refugees, and local communities, state that “(e)ffective policies on wildlife can provide a framework for communication between formerly conflicting parties; they can educate the population on the importance of sustainable resource management; and they can promote financial stability. All of these elements are crucial in preventing a renewed cycle of violence” (Rotshuizen and Smith 2013:502). However, not much is described or explained about the ecologies of the places or “nature” nor what peace would look like behind the absence of violence (liberal peace).

In relation to these “spatial” understandings of nature, some studies at the peace-environment nexus discuss limitations and opportunities to create international relations for management of transboundary ecosystems (e.g. Griffin and Ali 2014) and habitats (Maekawa et al. 2013), in the consolidation of conservation policies and legislation (Johnson et al. 2012, Rotshuizen and Smith 2013), in understanding spatial dynamics of land cover change for conservation and long-term or sustainable peace (Stevens et al. 2011, Ordway 2015) or in promoting forest carbon-storage and rural development (Castro-Nunez et al. 2017).

The notion of “peace parks” -promoting peace through the territorialization of nature conservation in transboundary areas- has been one of the central topics in studies at the peace-environment nexus (e.g., Brock 1991, Refisch and Jenson 2016, Trogisch and Fletcher 2020, Hsiao and Le Billon 2021, Hsiao 2022). Trogisch and Fletcher (2020:352) critically look at the Virunga Transboundary Conservation Areas (TCAs) and state that this type of “fortress conservation” embodies “the rationale that stimulating a tourism economy in shared conservation spaces will provide incentives for formerly antagonistic states and actors to cooperate.” By showing the ongoing militarization of national parks in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, and Uganda and the prevalence of violence among communities, the authors question “what kind of “peace” can be generated through tourism, and for whom?” (ibid). According to Hsiao (2022:82) “(t)he colonial modus operandi of fortress conservation has been one of the most disruptive processes for socionatures, severing communities from both natural environments and governance of those territories.”

We found that the literature rarely questions the human or other-than-human divide in space where some territories are to be dedicated to “nature.” This is somehow challenged by a convivial approach to conservation (e.g., Hsiao 2022) that provides examples of mobilizing bio/ecocentric or pluricentric worldviews, which will be discussed.

We consider the notion of ecological diplomacy as another example of referring to “nature” or “environment” in its spatial connotation, and in particular in relation to fostering cooperation toward peace. Griffin and Ali (2014) discuss the possibilities of the Ramsar Convention for “ecological diplomacy” among two countries. These authors consider ecological diplomacy and environmental cooperation as useful instruments to bring conflicting stakeholder groups together in a similar vein to previous studies. According to Griffin and Ali (2014:238) in the case of interstate conflict “[t]he unique nature of shared environmental conservation projects, especially those involving water, provide useful inroads for peacebuilding and conflict resolution. (...) that can meet basic, long-term human needs for food and shelter and, in turn, enhanced conditions for peace.” In a similar vein, Millburn (2012:1084) defines ecological development “to prevent the outbreak of conflict, promote peacebuilding and thereby help to end armed conflict, and enable a long-term process of post-conflict reconciliation and development.”

Nature or the natural environment can also work as a public space or semiotic system. In the latter sense, nature may assist people to navigate their surroundings, as rivers, stones, trees, and ponds can be used to mark borders between farmland or commons, delineate counties, or even provinces and countries. Nardi (2023) brings the case of Northern Uganda to show how environmental destruction during the armed conflict had consequences in the post-conflict when people returned to their lands and could not find natural markers in the landscape which were used to delimit their farms or districts between different ethnic communities. Eventually, conflict between families, clans and tribes triggered a resurgence of violence among rural communities in Northern Uganda (OHCHR 2008).

Many studies use the notion of “environment” in relation to the biophysical world and as an agenda item in national and/or international governance and/or sectoral development (e.g., “environmental” legislation, “environmental” cooperation, “environmental” tourism, “environmental” legislation, etc., e.g., Brock 1991, Fagan 2006, Vitic and Ringer 2008, Fagan and Sircar 2010, 2011, Jarraud and Lordos 2012, Waisová 2015, Aghedo 2015, Ali 2016, Johnson 2017). Here, the focus is not the “environment” but the “environmental” aspect of an issue, while little consideration is paid toward social-ecological relations nor the diverse meanings of place or “environment” (e.g., different ways of belonging, place identity, etc.).

So far, we have presented studies that exemplify a living in approach and anthropocentric worldview extending an “instrumental valuation” of nature. We argue that studies reproducing an anthropocentric approach to nature imply understandings of peace as absence of violence between peoples and nature more akin to a liberal understanding of peace (or negative peace) centered around liberal values of democracy and justice, states apparatus, and global capital markets (Hwang 2023). This also holds true for studies focusing on biodiversity conservation and peacebuilding between different local parties or communities (bottom-up approaches) or between states by international cooperation by advocating for a human–nature divide and the commodification of social-ecological relations. At the local level, the assumption seems to be that once nature (natural resources, land, biodiversity) is fairly distributed (by land or fiscal reforms for instance) and groups in conflict have secured a livelihood and are included into the market economy, conflicts and violence would decrease or be manageable. At the national level, the assumption seems to be that state institutions are well-functioning and capturing incomes or revenues from resource exploitation and trade, while at the same time maintaining law and order.

Bio/ecocentric worldviews of nature for peace

In this section we discuss bio/ecocentric worldviews that value nature mostly for its intrinsic and/or relational role for peace but, differently from anthropocentric worldviews, recognize and put greater attention to “ecology” or the web of relations between human and other forms of life. Bio/ecocentric worldviews in studies at the peace-environment nexus emphasize biological connections at different scales, the social construction of nature or socionatures as well as social-ecological relations among humans and other-than-humans. The recognition of a multiscalar approach that incorporates diverse groups of people and species as well as interspecies relations is central in bio/ecocentric approaches (e.g., Hsiao and Le Billon 2021).

The relational valuation of nature in this specific approach (“living with nature”) recognizes the central role of nature (as lived and shared space together with other forms of life and non-living organisms) in restoring social relations after armed conflict or preventing further conflict to achieve sustainable peace. At the same time, it also recognizes the central role of social-ecological relations in restoring nature toward more peaceful relations with the biophysical world in everyday life. Stewardship and responsibility for nature can be observed in the literature for example when it is claimed that ex-combats can reintegrate into society, as park or forest rangers (Maekawa et al. 2013, Castro-Nunez et al. 2017).

Nature in this sense is inherently an element of the biophysical world (e.g., a river, a mountain, a tree) and a lived and shared environment (e.g., Indigenous territories) that generates life for humans and other-than-humans. The intrinsic valuation of nature from a bio/ecological worldview pertains to the right of nature to exist independently of how nature can be a resource or service to humans.

Hwang (2023:66), for instance, makes the case for decolonializing human–nature relations discussing the rights of nature in Western societies in relation to peace and human rights. One of the cases the author discusses is the institutionalization of the rights of nature in New Zealand fostered by Mâori tribes to recognize the legal personhood to “particular ecosystems that they care as sacred entities.” The land which was part of a national park, a river and a mountain all were granted personhood and, while ownership has not changed in all cases, names were changed to Mâori as a way to address colonial wrongs and start peacebuilding processes between colonial settlers and Indigenous population. According to Hwang (2023:169) “(f)or the Mâori people’s, such legal changes are symbols of transitional justice and social reconciliation for legitimatizing their caring relationship with the planet. This rights of nature movement would continue to influence environmental politics and post-colonial movements in New Zealand.”

From a relational value of nature, Hsiao (2022) discusses human–wildlilfe conflict management from a convivial approach to biodiversity conservation using an ecological peace lens which “reflects a state of harmony or “species cooperation” between humans and the rest of nature premised on an ethic or relationship of mutual care and respect” (Hsiao and Le Billon 2021:30).

We deem empirical case studies by Hwang (2023) and Hsiao (2022) good examples to show the relevance also of pluricentric worldview to understand relational values of nature and sustainable peace. These studies consider nature as yet another “actor” and cohabiting with humans to be cared for in and for its own sake and as a way to foster more healthy social-ecological relations and in tune with the natural world for a quest for sustainable peace, but without romanticizing “the local.”

In the study on environmental peacebuilding in post-conflict Colombia, Valenzuela and Caicedo (2018:29) draw on the concept of environmental justice that “plays a key role, transcending the concern with preservation, in order to include change in the quality of life of populations and communities affected by economic growth and development. This implies recognition of local communities and the promotion of participation, equality, capacity building, and respect for the life options of local communities.” Thus, sustainable peace goes beyond the consideration and reduction of negative impacts of war o and requires understanding and counteract the potentially negative impacts of conservation policies or economic activities (which are generally promoted in the name of sustainable development and peace consolidation) by generally engaging with localized systems of knowledge and beliefs.

An environmental justice approach questions power dynamics and structures related to the distribution of natural resources or ecosystem services among parties in conflict and highlights the disproportional violence of extractivism or conservation suffered by particular (usually racialized) groups and their natural environment. Moreover, environmental justice shows how the lack of participation in “peace” building and the lack of recognition of pluralistic worldviews of nature and peace further marginalizes, displaces, or oppresses subjects that do not conform hegemonic understandings of peace (Alleson and Schoenfeld 2007, Rodríguez and Inturias 2018, Valenzuela and Caicedo 2018) including other-than-humans.

From this relational approach in bio/ecocentric worldviews, nature is valued for the possibilities it brings to create relations among peoples and among human and other-than-humans. A major contribution of an environmental justice lens in peace studies is the consideration of the role of alternative types of knowledge that are usually excluded from policy making (e.g., Rodríguez and Inturias 2018) or the recognitional aspects of justice, which might include pluricentric worldviews.

Pluricentric worldviews of nature for peace

In this section, we present pluricentric worldviews of nature in the peace-environment literature bringing some examples. Following Pascual et al. (2023:813) “‘Living as’ nature prioritizes embodying and perceiving nature as a physical, mental and spiritual part of oneself, emphasizing broad values of oneness, kinship and interdependence.” These are studies that exemplify the importance of a pluricentric worldview by showing how we are all connected in a biocultural web of life.

Using an ecological peace approach, Golden (2016:267) discusses education for peace and brings a central argument for environmental peacebuilding where: “(p)eace educators have for some time acknowledged the importance to their work of both the methods and results of ecological ways of thinking (...) the awareness that we as individuals are interconnected and part of some larger whole is a necessary basis for peacebuilding if we are to modify our behaviour toward other people and the environment.”

Tyner and Will (2015) study the transformation of environmental consciousness in post-conflict Cambodia that “articulate[s] a dialectics between ‘nature’ and ‘humanity,’ whereby violence is imbricated with the co-constitution of nature-society relations” (ibid: 362). Their study explains how the leadership of the Communist Party of Kampuche (CPK) sought to change human nature by transforming nature, in a symbolic but, more importantly, a material way, “...men, women and children were deployed to wage war on nature (...) the CPK adopted a materialist conception of nature (...).” The transformation of Democratic Kampuchea’s natural environment would result in a transformation of consciousness; in turn, a proper political consciousness would lead to additional transformations of the country’s natural resources (Tyner and Will 2015:368).

Also here is worth mentioning Hsiao (2022) study which shows the relevance of totem species which are found in many Indigenous cultures as species related historically and spiritually to peoples. According to Hsiao (2022:88) local ecological or Indigenous knowledge is central for fostering positive ecological peace based on mutual care that “can also be eroded when the responsibility to protect a species shifts from the clan to the state or other conservation authority.”

Valencia and Courtheyn (2023) also discuss conviviality in the Cauca region of Colombia, to show how living with coca (“coca for life”) is possible to advance peaceful relations among community members, a resignification of gender relations, and advancing caring ecological relations by mobilizing biocultural knowledges based on Indigenous understanding of the coca plant. The authors illustrate how nurturing coca plants for agroecology assists in building a decolonial peace that questions and dismantle structural and slow violence suffered by campesino communities in this region of the country due to capitalist extractivism and narcotrafficking.

Asserting the interconnectedness between humans and other-than-humans can lead to the design and implementation of policies and strategies supporting a more sustainable peace. These different approaches we presented are examples of worldviews where nature is co-constitutive of humanity, and thus as an integral and inherent requisite for achieving sustainable peace. From these worldviews there is no ontological separation between humanity and nature, which in turn are expressions of the relational value of nature as living as (Table 1).

IMPLICATIONS FOR PEACE POLICY FROM A DECOLONIAL APPROACH

These diverse understandings and valuations of nature and environment have important implications for peace policy, policy analyses and recommendations conducive to sustainable peace. One of IPBES (2022:10) key messages is that “despite the diversity of nature’s values, most policy making approaches have prioritised a narrow set of values at the expense of both nature and society, as well as of future generations, and have often ignored values associated with Indigenous peoples’ and local communities’ worldviews.”

We argue that having a bottom-up and critical approach focused on the inclusion of diverse and sometimes conflicting worldviews from local communities in environmental and peacebuilding policies is central for the promotion of sustainable peace. There is an increasing recognition of the importance of considering various types of violence (from slow violence to gender violence) in historical context along with current power dynamics and injustices “on the ground.” From our engagement with the literature at the peace-environment nexus we can observe three broad challenges. First, “nature” has been ontologically approached as (a) material objects to be exploited or utilized (e.g., as a “resource” or “capital” in an economic process leading to conflict stabilization or cooperation between parties), (b) material space to be exploited and/or controlled (e.g., as land or ecosystem whose services are needed for economic and social development and peace consolidation), or (c) symbolic space (e.g., as an “environmental issue,” a political arena, an institutional space that can help to foster collaboration between different social, political groups who may or may not have been parties of an armed conflict).

Second, we observe that when “nature” is approached as “environment” it is often limited to the space surrounding a given community or stakeholder group, but not as the space surrounding the author/s who is/are writing about those “environments.” This might reveal the inherent challenges of bringing scale into an ecological or decolonial peace agenda that recognizes interconnectedness, and that ecological destruction and conflict somewhere might be caused by ecological protection and economic growth somewhere else embedded in a long history of colonial (and post-colonial) relations.

Third, recognizing the central role of localized understandings of peacebuilding and Indigenous knowledges is closer to an environmental justice approach that moves beyond distributional and procedural aspects of justice to incorporate the recognition of people’s understandings of both peace and justice (e.g., Rodriguez and Inturias 2018) and a decolonial approach to liberal peace (Rodriguez Iglesias 2019, Valencia and Courtheyn 2023).

In this endeavor, the notion of environmental justice becomes relevant to think about peace. For Alleson and Schoenfeld (2007:371) the notion of environmental justice “is about privilege, asymmetric power relations, exploitation, and oppression.” The notion of environmental justice (or injustice) counterbalances the bureaucratic approach to “environmental cooperation” which “involves management plans, new policy initiatives and technological innovations” (ibid) because it looks directly into how resources and knowledge are unfairly distributed among groups of people, particularly in detriment of racialized ones, and how certain norms, value systems, and beliefs are more valued than others.

Using a decolonial lens to approach peace using our framework based on worldviews, life frames and valuations of nature (Pascual et al. 2023, IPBES 2022) entails acknowledging and addressing the historical and ongoing impacts of colonialism on both humans and other-than-humans and addressing environmental injustices rooted in ecological violence brought by colonial powers.

The different dimensions of nature valuation impact decolonial peace strategies differently. From an instrumental valuation of nature, peace policies designed and implemented from a decolonial approach recognize the disproportionate exploitation of natural resources and the deterioration of ecosystem services in colonized or former colonial regions for the benefit of colonial powers, their allies, and/or the local elites and the expansion of global capital. Such policies would carefully address the role and responsibilities of national governmental institutions, civil organizations, and donors, along with top-down regulations and market-based mechanisms in correcting such injustices.

Based on a mix of governmental, nongovernmental, and market mechanisms, the concrete policies to address injustices brought by colonial legacies but also new ones may involve prioritizing the redistribution of certain natural resources, the restoration of given ecosystems among parties in conflict, but with the recognition of local or Indigenous land rights and traditional ecological knowledge inasmuch these can be translated into livelihoods generation at local level. By observing historical injustices and trying to rectify them, an instrumental valuation of nature can contribute to building peace based on principles of economic fairness and cooperation.

Recognizing the intrinsic value of nature through a decolonial lens involves challenging anthropocentric perspectives that have justified the exploitation and domination of both human societies and nature. Decolonial peace policies informed by intrinsic valuation would, even more strongly than instrumental value-based policies, prioritize the restoration of ecosystems or the conservation of those already restored but based on different rationales and with a more encompassing focus. Nature would be recognized as having rights, and social-ecological relations would be integrated much clearer in everyday practices of peacebuilding.

Decolonial peace policies informed by the relational value of nature would emphasize the interconnectedness between Indigenous or colonial histories, environmental degradation and restoration, social (in)justice issues, localized systems of knowledge and everyday life. Such policies would even go beyond the encompassing social-ecological restoration efforts of intrinsic value-based policies, with a strong focus on supporting lasting connections between humans, other-than-humans, and the spiritual world. Respective efforts would seek to address root causes of violent conflict by fostering collaborative approaches to environmental governance that center the voices and needs of marginalized communities, including racialized people. By recognizing the interdependence between ecological sustainability and social equity, relational valuation of nature can contribute to building peace based on solidarity, mutual respect, collective action, and conviviality between humans and other-than-humans.

This might include restoring cultural and spiritual connections to the land and recognizing Indigenous worldviews that perceive nature as sacred and interconnected. By centering Indigenous perspectives and values, such policies can promote reconciliation, healing at a deeper level, and the revitalization of traditional ecological practices, contributing to peacebuilding efforts grounded in respect for diverse ways of knowing and being.

Considerable differences exist, however, regarding the motivations and scope and sustainability of such approaches. These differences notwithstanding, we can expect that integrating decolonial perspectives into the valuation of nature would considerably help post-conflict societies to address historical injustices, promote social-ecological justice, and foster inclusive and equitable peace processes. By acknowledging the complex relationships between colonialism, different types of violence (positive, negative, cultural, slow, structural, symbolic, gender, etc.) decolonial peace policies could contribute to building more biocultural diverse and just societies. Likewise, such policies may alter the ways that nature is valued in a society and, ideally and eventually, lead to a stronger accentuation of intrinsic and relational valuations.

FINAL REFLECTIONS

We argue that certain understandings of nature and the environment have direct repercussions for how authors at the peace-environment nexus understand peace. Vice versa the way authors understand peace affects the choice of concepts and notions of nature or environment.

We observe a tendency in the peace-environment literature to understand “nature” as natural resources or ecosystem services, as inputs for economic growth. Herein, resources and services contribute to attract and obtain revenues that can be used toward reconstruction, development and, in the long run, “peace.” This resembles findings from Johnson et al. (2021:6) from a systematic research review on intrastate environmental peacebuilding where many studies analyzed the peacebuilding potential of renewable and non-renewable resources and only a fraction discussed broader notions of environment. Despite natural resources frequently framed and conceptualized as a key component for peacebuilding, the literature largely disregards or oversees the systematic colonial power of the global economic order where economic development becomes a precondition to peace. This somehow represents the idea that only in “poor countries” wars and armed conflict take place, and their subordinated insertion to the world economy, as providers of raw material and cheap labor, has not much to do with initiating or fostering conflict.

For peace to become more sustainable it must be conceptually and politically approached from a decolonial perspective: ecological, multiscalar, in dialogue with local or Indigenous knowledge and belief systems, based on everyday life, and beyond nation-states. Ecological and multiscalar because it is necessary to understand the multiple connections, spaces and environments between humans and other-than-humans including the spiritual world. In dialogue with other types of understandings, particularly local or Indigenous because how peace is lived, experienced, and defined is connected to the everyday life of those in conflict situations or exposed to different forms of violence, not necessarily the author (unless the author is writing from within that knowledge system, which is usually not the case).

In this sense, our analysis shows that there seems to be a tendency to approach society and nature not as socionatures but as ontologically different entities, a clear nature–human divide and hierarchy where nature is a resource or service to humans (anthropocentric worldview). Only few studies understand nature as a social construction or “socionatures” (e.g., Tyner and Will 2015, Hsiao 2022) or approach peace from a bio/ecocentric or pluricentric worldview (e.g., Golden 2016, Valencia and Courtheyn 2023, Hwang 2023). This is striking considering that violent conflicts might arise due to disagreements among stakeholders on the diverse meanings of nature and/or environment (a service or a resource? burden or companionship?).

Few empirical (e.g., Palmer 2010, Tyner and Will 2015, Golden 2016, Hsiao 2023, Valencia and Courtheyn 2023) and conceptual studies (Kyrou 2007, Rodriguez Iglesias 2019, Jimenez Bautista 2017) address the inseparability of humans and the non-human world and show the dialectics between “nature” and “humanity” and the co-constitution of socionatures relations advocating for the need to understand the profound interconnectedness between humans and other-than-humans, moving beyond an anthropocentric approach to peacebuilding to incorporate the ecological, spiritual or psychological world of those most affected in relational approach to others people. In this sense, it has been difficult to find studies at the intersection of peace and environment that would look into empirical cases from a pluricentric worldview approach.

We argue that it is important that the academic community at the peace-environment nexus continues an emerging trend of self-reflection or reflectivity (cf. Ide et al. 2023, Simangan et al. 2022). We need more critical analyses on the role of scholars in producing and reproducing certain perspectives and knowledge of nature and environment while neglecting alternative viewpoints, as well as the implications this may have for policymaking.

Since diverse groups of people have different ideas and interests on nature, and, therewith, on peace, academic scholars could assist not only in dismantling hegemonic and pervasive notions of nature in international peacebuilding policies, but also engage with local communities who have been directly affected by conflict in order to understand their worldviews and valuations of nature, to push toward a pluralistic understanding to be reflected both in academic research but also policy.

We understand the difficulty of the task. Engaging in the everyday life of people in war zones or transiting post conflict after a long period of armed conflict might be challenging. Doing fieldwork to understand local worldviews and socionature relations might discourage academic researchers from writing about this (assuming most of the authors publishing at the peace-environment nexus are not from warzones). In this context, we consider that academic research on peacebuilding needs to make more efforts to incorporate diverse understandings of nature (and peace), in order to move beyond the predominantly instrumental perspective on nature. Moving ontologically closer to those “natures” and “environments” of people directly affected by armed conflicts is crucial to understand and unpack the pervasive perspectives and values reproduced by researchers, policymakers, practitioners, donors, etc., as it is crucial for a different and more encompassing views on peace.

We thus argue that a limited understanding and valuation of nature (and peace) might also limit transitions toward a more profound re-mending of the social-ecological relationships that are needed for real sustainable peace (across scales, from local to global). Overcoming the ontological bias that persists in the literature at the nexus of peace and the environment should guide future research interested in understanding real possibilities to construct sustainable peace (and acting upon this).

Ontological and epistemological reflections on the diverging ideas of nature and environments are an important starting point. The epistemological implications that come with a more critical view on the social construction of both nature and peace, can lead to an ontological shift and a positive trajectory for policies and initiatives toward more sustainable peacebuilding by incorporating the voice (valuations, beliefs, social-ecological relations, worldviews, etc.) of those most affected by any type of violence.

There is a need to understand nature and environment not only as the materiality that people rely on for their physical survival, but also as flows of energies that connect everything and that are of tremendous importance to people's psychological and spiritual well-being. While the first is a prerequisite for people to exist and function in a society that is rebuilding itself from armed conflict, the latter is a fundamental component to repair the mental health implications of armed conflicts and to rebuild a healthy relationship among individuals and society at large for lasting and sustainable peace.

LITERATURE CITED

Aghedo, I. 2015. Sowing peace, reaping violence: understanding the resurgence of kidnapping in post-amnesty Niger Delta, Nigeria. Insight on Africa 7(2):137-153. https://doi.org/10.1177/0975087815580729

Aguilar, M., J. Sierra, W. Ramirez, O. Vargas, Z. Calle, W. Vargas, C. Murcia, J. Aronson, and J. I. Barrera Cataño. 2015. Toward a post-conflict Colombia: restoring to the future. Restoration Ecology 23(1):4-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12172

Akçalı, E., and M. Antonsich. 2009. Nature knows no boundaries: a critical reading of UNDP environmental peacemaking in Cyprus. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 99(5):940-947. https://doi.org/10.1080/00045600903245938

Ali, S. H. 2016. Reconciling Islamic ethics, fossil fuel dependence, and climate change in the Middle East. Review of Middle East Studies 50(2):172-178. https://doi.org/10.1017/rms.2016.135

Alleson, I., and S. Schoenfeld. 2007. Environmental Justice and Peacebuilding in the Middle East. Peace Review: A Journal of Social Justice 19:371-379. https://doi.org/10.1080/10402650701524956

Ansoms, A., and A. McKay. 2010. A quantitative analysis of poverty and livelihood profiles: the case of rural Rwanda. Food Policy 35(6):584-598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.06.006

Aoki, C., A. Al-Lami, and S. Kugaprasatham. 2011. Lessons learned from environmental management of the Iraqi marshlands in the post-conflict period. Water International 36(2):197-206. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2011.561770

Baden, E., A. Regelbrugge, E. Barron, and C. Zakour. 2022. The search for meaning: why clear definitions make for effective engagement in environmental peacebuilding. Brown, O., and G. Nicolucci-Altman, editors. White Paper on the Future of Environmental Peacebuilding. Geneva Peacebuilding Platform, International Union for Conservation of Nature, PeaceNexus Foundation, Environmental Law Institute, Environmental Peacebuilding Association.

Beevers, M. D. 2015. Peace resources? Governing Liberia’s forests in the aftermath of conflict. International Peacekeeping 22(1):26-42. https://doi.org/10.1080/13533312.2014.992568

Beevers, M. D. 2016. Forest governance and post-conflict peace in Liberia: emerging contestation and opportunities for change? The Extractive Industries and Society 3(2):320-328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2015.07.007

Berdal, M., and N. Mousavizadeh. 2010. Investing for peace: the private sector and the challenges of peacebuilding. Survival 52(2):37-58. https://doi.org/10.1080/00396331003764595

Brock, L. 1991. Peace through parks: the environment on the peace research agenda. Journal of Peace Research 28(4):407-423. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343391028004006

Bruch, C., M. Boulicault, and T. S. Jensen. 2012. Peacebuilding and natural resources. Environmental Forum 29(4):48-55.

Carius, A. 2006. Environmental peacebuilding: conditions for success. Special Report, Environment Change and Security Program Report - ESCP Issue 12:59-75. Washington, D.C., USA.

Castro-Nunez, A., O. Mertz, and C. C. Sosa. 2017. Geographic overlaps between priority areas for forest carbon-storage efforts and those for delivering peacebuilding programs: implications for policy design. Environmental Research Letters 12(5):054014. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa6f20

Conca, K., and G. D. Dabelko, editors. 2002. Environmental peacemaking. Woodrow Wilson Center Press and Johns Hopkins University Press, Washington, D.C., USA. https://doi.org/10.56021/9780801871924

Conca, K., and J. Wallace. 2009. Environment and peacebuilding in war-torn societies: lessons from the UN Environment Programme’s experience with post-conflict assessment. Global Governance 15(4):485-504. https://doi.org/10.1163/19426720-01504008

Conca, K., and M. D. Beevers. 2018. Environmental pathways to peace. Swain, A. and J. Öjendal, editors. Routledge handbook of environmental conflict and peacebuilding. Routledge, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315473772-5

Cruz, J. D. 2021. Colonial power and decolonial peace. Peacebuilding 9(3):274-288. https://doi.org/10.1080/21647259.2021.1906516

Dam-de Jong, D. 2013. From engines for conflict into engines for sustainable development: the potential of international law to address predatory exploitation of natural resources in situations of internal armed conflict. Nordic Journal of International Law 82(1):155-177. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004270657_011

Davis, K., L. E. R. Peters, J. Van Den Hoek, and K. Conca. 2023. Power in environmental peacebuilding. World Development Sustainability 3:100110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wds.2023.100110

Day, S., N. Malherbe, S. Suffla, and M. Seedat. 2023. Building decolonial peace into the everyday: a feminist intervention. Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/17502977.2023.2241754

del Castillo, G. 2014. War-torn countries, natural resources, emerging-power investors and the UN development system. Third World Quarterly 35(10):1911-1926. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2014.971610

Downdeswell, T. L., and P. Hania. 2014. Regulating water and war in Iraq: a dangerous dark side of new governance. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 21(2):453-482. https://doi.org/10.2979/indjglolegstu.21.2.453

Dresse, A., I. Fischhendler, J. Østergaard Nielsen, and D. Zikos (2019). Environmental peacebuilding: towards a theoretical framework. Cooperation and Conflict 54(1):99-119. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836718808331

Dresse, A., J. Østergaard Nielsen, and D. Zikos. 2016. Moving beyond natural resources as a source of conflict: exploring the human-environment nexus of environmental peacebuilding. THESys Discussion Paper 2016-2. Humboldt Universität zu Berlin.

Fagan, A., and I. Sircar. 2010. Environmental politics in the Western Balkans: river basin management and non-governmental organisation (NGO) activity in Herzegovina. Environmental Politics 19(5):808-830. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2010.508313

Fagan, A., and I. Sircar. 2011. Foreign donor assistance and environmental capacity building: evidence from Serbia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. European Political Science Review 3(2):301-320. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773910000391

Fagan, A. 2006. Neither “north” nor “south”: the environment and civil society in post-conflict Bosnia-Herzegovina. Environmental Politics 15(5):787-802. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644010600937215

FitzGerald, G. 2023. Unsettling peace: the settler-colonial challenge to the local turn. Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/17502977.2023.2215134

Garrett, N., S. Sergiou, and K. Vlassenroot. 2009. Negotiated peace for extortion: the case of Walikale territory in eastern DR Congo. Journal of Eastern African Studies 3(1):1-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/17531050802682671

Golden, M. 2016. Musicking as education for social and ecological peace: a new synthesis. Journal of Peace Education 13(3):266-282. https://doi.org/10.1080/17400201.2016.1234612

Görg, C. 2022. Critical theory: praxis and emancipation beyond the mastery of nature. Pellizzoni, L., E. Leonardi and V. Asara, editors. Handbook of critical environmental politics. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Griffin, P. J., and S. H. Ali. 2014. Managing transboundary wetlands: the Ramsar Convention as a means of ecological diplomacy. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences 4(3):230-239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-014-0173-0

Guenther, B. 2008. The Asian drivers and the resource curse in Sub-Saharan Africa: the potential impacts of rising commodity prices for conflict and governance in the DRC. The European Journal of Development Research 20(2):347-363. https://doi.org/10.1080/09578810802078712

Harbottle, M. 1994. Worldwide perspectives of security and the military role. GeoJournal 34:191-199. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00813824

Heupel, M. 2006. Shadow trade war economies and their challenge to peacebuilding. Journal of International Relations and Development 9(2):140-169. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jird.1800085

Homer-Dixon, T. F. 1999. Environment, scarcity, and violence. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.

Hsiao, E. (L. Y.), and P. Le Billon. 2022. Connecting peaces: TBCAs and the integration of international, social, and ecological peace. International Journal on World Peace XXXVIII (1):7-40.

Hsiao, E. (L. Y). 2022. Conviviality in disrupted socionatural landscapes. Conservation and Society 20(2):79-91. https://doi.org/10.4103/cs.cs_24_21

Hwang, J. 2023. Building sustainable peace through the “rights of nature” in Western societies. Journal of Human Rights Studies 6(1):149-188.

Ide, T. 2017. Space, discourse and environmental peacebuilding. Third World Quarterly 38(3):544-562. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2016.1199261

Ide, T., M. K. F. Johnson, J. Barnett, F. Krampe, P. Billon, L. Maertens, N. von Uexkull, and I. Vélez-Torres. 2023. The future of environmental peace and conflict research. Environmental Politics 32(6):1077-1103. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2022.2156174

IPBES. 2022. U. Pascual, P. Balvanera, M. Christie, B. Baptiste, D. González-Jiménez, C. B. Anderson, S. Athayde, D. N. Barton, R. Chaplin-Kramer, S. Jacobs, et al., editors. Summary for policymakers of the methodological assessment report on the diverse values and valuation of nature of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany.

Jarraud, N. S., and A. Lordos. 2012. Participatory approaches to environmental conflict resolution in Cyprus. Conflict Resolution Quarterly 29(3):261-281. https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.21040

Jimenez, B. 2017. Paz ecológica y Paz gaia: Nuevas formas de construcción de paz. Revista de Cultura de Paz 1:7-29.

Johnson, M. K. F. 2017. Institutional change in a conflict setting: Afghanistan’s environment law. European Journal of International Relations 23(1):168-191. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066115624953

Johnson, M. K., N. Kanderian, C. C. Shank, H. Rahmani, D. Lawson, and P. Smallwood. 2012. Setting priorities for protected area planning in a conflict zone - Afghanistan’s National Protected Area System Plan. Biological Conservation 148(1):146-155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.01.021

Johnson, M. K. F., L. A. Rodríguez, and M. Quijano Hoyos. 2021. Intrastate environmental peacebuilding: a review of the literature. World Development 137:105150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105150

Kovach, T., and K. Conca. 2016. Environmental priorities in post-conflict recovery: efficacy of the needs-assessment process. Journal of Peacebuilding and Development 11(2):4-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/15423166.2016.1181002

Krampe, F., and S. Gignoux. 2018. Water service provision and peacebuilding in East Timor. Exploring the socio-ecological determinants of sustaining peace. Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding 12 (2):185-207. https://doi.org/10.1080/17502977.2018.1466945

Krampe, F. 2017. Towards sustainable peace: a new research agenda for post-conflict natural resource management. Global Environmental Politics 17 (4):1-8. https://doi.org/10.1162/GLEP_a_00431

Krampe, F., F. Hegazi, and S. D. VanDeveerb. 2021. Sustaining peace through better resource governance: three potential mechanisms for environmental peacebuilding. World Development 144:105508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105508

Kyrou, C. N. 2007. Peace ecology: an emerging paradigm in peace studies. International Journal of Peace Studies 12 (I):73-92.

Le Billon, P. 2018. Conflict ecologies: connecting political ecology and peace and conflict studies. Journal of Political Ecology 25:239-260. https://doi.org/10.2458/v25i1.22704

Le Billon, P. 2001. The political ecology of war: natural resources and armed conflicts. Political Geography 20:5:561-584. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0962-6298(01)00015-4

Lederach, J. P. 1997. Building peace: sustainable reconciliation in divided societies. United Nations University Press, Tokyo, Japan.

Maconachie, R. 2016. The extractive industries, mineral sector reform and post-conflict reconstruction in developing countries. The Extractive Industries and Society 3(2):313-315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2016.03.004

Maekawa, M., A. Lanjouw, E. Rutagarama, and D. Sharp. 2013. Mountain gorilla tourism generating wealth and peace in post-conflict Rwanda. Natural Resources Forum 37(2):127-137. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-8947.12020

Milburn, R. 2012. Mainstreaming the environment into postwar recovery: the case for “ecological development.” International Affairs 88(5):1083-1100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2346.2012.01120.x

Millar, G. 2016. Local experiences of liberal peace: marketization and emergent conflict dynamics in Sierra Leone. Journal of Peace Research 53(4):569-581. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343316632580

Nardi, M. A. 2023. How do local peoples’ natural environments matter for peacebuilding and human rights? Nature beyond natural resources, Lund University Blog The Nature of Peace. https://natureofpeace.blogg.lu.se/how-do-local-peoples-natural-environments-matter-for-peacebuilding-and-human-rightsnature-beyond-natural-resources/

Ogden, L. E. 2018. Environmental peacebuilding. Bioscience 68(3):157-163. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix159

OHCHR. 2008. Activities of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Uganda. Annual report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and reports of the Office of the High Commissioner and the Secretary General. Report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and follow-up to the World Conference on Human Rights. Addendum. A/HRC/7/38/Add.2 (paragraph 29).

Ordway, E. M. 2015. Political shifts and changing forests: effects of armed conflict on forest conservation in Rwanda. Global Ecology and Conservation 3:448-460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2015.01.013

Palmer, L. 2010. Enlivening development: water management in post-conflict Baucau city, Timor-Leste. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 31(3):357-370. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9493.2010.00404.x

Pascual, U. P. Balvanera, C. B. Anderson, R. Chaplin-Kramer, M. Christie, D. González-Jiménez, A. Martin, C. M. Raymond, M. Termansen, A. Vatn, S. Athayde, et al. 2023. Diverse values of nature for sustainability. Nature 620:813-823. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06406-9

Perks, R. 2016. Re-framing the nature and success of the “post-conflict” mineral reform agenda in Rwanda. The Extractive Industries and Society 3(2):329-339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2015.05.009

Refisch, J., and J. Jenson. 2016. Transboundary collaboration in the Greater Virunga Landscape: From gorilla conservation to conflict-sensitive transboundary landscape management. Bruch, C., C. Muffett, and S. Nichols, editors. Governance, Natural Resources and Post-Conflict Peacebuilding. Routledge Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203109793-39

Rodriguez Iglesias, A. I. 2019. A decolonial critique of the liberal peace: Insights from peace practices of ethnic people in Colombia. Revista de Paz y Conflictos 12(2):199-223. https://doi.org/10.30827/revpaz.v12i2.9379

Rodríguez, I., and M. L. Inturias. 2018. Conflict transformation in Indigenous peoples' territories: doing environmental justice with a “decolonial turn.” Development Studies Research 5(1):90-105. https://doi.org/10.1080/21665095.2018.1486220

Rotshuizen, S., and M. L. R. Smith. 2013. Of warriors, poachers and peacekeepers: protecting wildlife after conflict. Cooperation and Conflict 48(4):502-521. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836713487277

Rustad, S. A., and H. M. Binningsbø. 2012. A price worth fighting for? Natural resources and conflict recurrence. Journal of Peace Research 49(4):531-546. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343312444942

Selby, J. 2013. The myth of liberal peace-building. Conflict, Security and Development 13(1):57-86. https://doi.org/10.1080/14678802.2013.770259

Simangan, D., C. Y. Lee, A. Sharifi, J. L. Candelaria, and S. Kaneko. 2022. A global analysis of interactions between peace and environmental sustainability. Earth System Governance 14:100152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esg.2022.100152

Soroos, M. S. 2004. Tools for environmental peacebuilders. International Journal of Peace Studies 9(2):87-107.

Stevens, K., L. Campbell, G. Urquhart, D. Kramer, and J. Qi. 2011. Examining complexities of forest cover change during armed conflict on Nicaragua’s Atlantic Coast. Biodiversity and Conservation 20(12):2597-2613. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-011-0093-1

Sunca, J. Y. 2023. Decolonial politics: state, statelessness, and coexistence in peace. Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/17502977.2023.2212992

Swain, A., and F. Krampe. 2011. Stability and sustainability in peace building: priority area for warfare ecology. Pages 199-210 in Machlis, G. E., T. Hanson, Z. Špirić, and J. E. Mckendry, editors. Warfare ecology. Springer, Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1214-0_14

Trogisch, L. and R. Fletcher. 2020. Fortress tourism: exploring dynamics of tourism, security and peace around the Virunga transboundary conservation area. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 30(2-3):352-371. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003299578-3

Tyner, J. A., and R. Will. 2015. Nature and post-conflict violence: water management under the Communist Party of Kampuchea 1975-1979. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 40(3):362-374. https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12080

UNEP. 2016. Environmental cooperation for peacebuilding programme: final report. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi.

Unruh, J., and M. Shalaby. 2012. A volatile interaction between peacebuilding priorities: road infrastructure (re)construction and land rights in Afghanistan. Progress in Development Studies 12(1):47-61. https://doi.org/10.1177/146499341101200103

Valencia, Ó. E., and C. Courtheyn. 2023. Peace through coca? Decolonial peacebuilding ecologies and rural development in the Territory of Conviviality and Peace of Lerma, Colombia. Third World Quarterly 44(5):1077-1097. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2023.2175656

Valenzuela, P., and S. Caicedo. 2018. Environmental peacebuilding in post-conflict Colombia. Swain, A. and J. Öjendal, editors. Routledge handbook of environmental conflict and peacebuilding. Routledge, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315473772-17

Vitic, A., and G. Ringer. 2008. Branding post-conflict destinations: recreating Montenegro after the disintegration of Yugoslavia. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 23(2-4):127-137. https://doi.org/10.1300/J073v23n02_10

Waisová, Š. 2015. Environmental cooperation and conflict transformation. Central European Journal of International and Security Studies 9(2):92-116.

Waisová, Š. 2023. Expert knowledge on environmental peacebuilding: the social context of its diffusion in international politics and what it says about it. Politics in Central Europe 19(4):835-869. https://doi.org/10.2478/pce-2023-0037

Weerawardhana, C. 2018. Decolonising peacebuilding: managing conflict from Northern Ireland to Sri Lanka and beyond. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Zetter, R., and B. K Blitz. 2014. Contestation and reconstruction: natural capital and post-conflict development in borderland regions. Stability: International Journal of Security and Development 3(1):1-18. https://doi.org/10.5334/sta.ed

Zondi, S. 2017. African Union approaches to peacebuilding: efforts at shifting the continent towards decolonial peace. African Journal on Conflict Resolution 17(1):105-131.