From the ground up: new avenues for Environmental Peacebuilding

Not all trends are positive. In recent years, the world has faced a surge in violence that is unprecedented since World War II. At the same time, climate change is increasingly showing its harmful effects worldwide, with extreme events and changes in ecosystems. In this fast-moving, constantly changing world, peacebuilding is evolving to meet the ever-varying challenges we face.

The evolution of environmental peacebuilding

Environmental Peacebuilding (EP) specifically aims to address these complex issues. It is a field that integrates environmental concerns into conflict prevention, mitigation, and resolution. Historically, cooperation on issues such as natural resource management has been viewed as a matter of low politics, upon which previously conflicting parties could work together more easily. One of the earliest examples dates back to 1999, when Ecuador and Peru put an end to a 170-year conflict over territorial disputes by establishing, among other resolutions, the Cordillera del Condor Transboundary Protected Area. Initially, the area consisted of two separate parks, each managed by a country. However, thanks to building trust over conservation issues, a binational management plan was eventually implemented. The park is now a demilitarized zone home to unique ecosystems. This early case constitutes one of the first examples of integrating environmental issues into conflict resolution, but it is worth noting that the discipline has evolved widely over time.

Among scholars and practitioners, there is overall agreement that the field of environmental peacebuilding has matured over three different generations, the first one being concomitant to the Ecuador-Peru conflict resolution. This first period focused on interstate conflicts, transboundary water, and conservation issues. The so-called “peace parks” were considered a promising tool for conflict management, but in later years, other scholars started criticising them as a means of extending state control over contested areas rather than a tool for achieving peace.

The second generation of EP has focused more on post-conflict settings and on intrastate conflicts, also given the muted nature of contemporary disputes. Experts now claim that we are witnessing the third generation of EP, characterised by an ever-growing awareness of the need for interdisciplinary discussions. The field has benefited from the foundation, in 2019, of the Environmental Peacebuilding Association, which created a platform for knowledge exchange among practitioners and academics with diverse backgrounds. This latest generation is increasingly interested in bottom-up approaches, gender, and conflict-sensitive programming, among other things. It is not surprising that different UN agencies, such as UNEP, UN Women, and UNDPPA, joined forces to develop a joint programme working at the intersection of gender, natural resources, climate, and peace. 

Promising examples

The growing interest in the topic, however, is not limited to international agencies and niche interventions. By 2025, the nexus between environment, climate change, and conflict is no longer a matter of low politics – if it ever was. Reflecting the growing occurrence of intrastate conflicts, states themselves are directly intervening within their national borders. One of the most relevant cases of a post-conflict setting implementing environmental peacebuilding initiatives is Colombia. In 2016, the country, devastated by a civil war that lasted over seven decades, finally signed a peace agreement with the most prominent guerrilla group, the FARC-EP. The accords included environmental provisions, such as land property reform and the establishment of encampments in rural areas where former combatants could live alongside local communities, thus promoting reconciliation. The rural reform laid the groundwork for agricultural development, which in turn increased communities’ adaptive capacity and resilience. Alongside these institutional projects with a strong focus on local participation and sustainability, communities across Colombia have begun working independently on similar issues. Organizations like Sembrandopaz support grassroots solutions that confront violence, displacement, and weak political presence in areas where the state has traditionally been absent. Nearly a decade after the end of Colombia’s civil war, many issues related to violence, equitable resource distribution, and climate adaptation still require proper attention.

However, both national provisions and grassroots projects acknowledging the agency of local populations show promising results in regions severely affected by the conflict.

International recognition

On top of states and UN agencies, environmental peacebuilding is gaining increased attention with practitioners and organizations with very diverse backgrounds. High-level conferences like the Geneva Peace Week and the Berlin Climate Security Conference, both organized in October 2025, included panels on the nexus between climate, peace, and conflict. Even when not explicitly stated, interventions and programs working at the intersection of these topics can be configured as environmental peacebuilding. Their presence at international events like these conferences clearly indicates the urgency of coordinating actions on these topics. Practitioners active in the field have started coming together to discuss best practices and influence the direction of funding and initiatives.

Future avenues

While the topic of environmental peacebuilding is gaining more attention among both academics and practitioners, some areas still need further development. We must consider how to work effectively at the intersection of climate and conflict issues and how to make these efforts as sustainable and successful as possible. The third generation of EP has provided us with a partial answer: emphasizing bottom-up approaches and minority concerns is now more crucial than ever. The local level offers context-specific knowledge that can be extremely helpful, and working at the grassroots level allows for the respect of local ownership. The evidence is clear: environmental peacebuilding works best when communities are integrated. Moving forward, practitioners and funders must prioritize local ownership when designing interventions – it is not just ethical, it is the key to a lasting and sustainable peace.