This essay examines the potential of environmental peacebuilding (EPB) to foster positive peace, arguing that its success hinges on whether it prioritizes local communities over external institutions or technocratic approaches. Using the analytical lenses of Johan Galtung’s concepts of positive and negative peace, alongside structural violence, and Emmanuel Murithi’s emphasis on community-centered peacebuilding and reconciliation across macro, meso, and micro levels, the paper critiques EPB’s mechanisms and ethical implications. The structure proceeds as follows: first, I define the analytical frameworks of Galtung and Murithi; second, I characterize EPB using key texts by Dresse et al. (2019) and Ide (2019); third, I apply these lenses to uncover tensions, power dynamics, and ethical risks in EPB; and finally, I conclude with reflections on the importance of community empowerment for sustainable peace. This analysis aims to reveal not just whether EPB works, but how it operates and what limits or challenges emerge when viewed through these critical perspectives.
Analytical Lenses: Galtung and Murithi
To analyze environmental peacebuilding, this essay draws on two key frameworks from peace studies. Johan Galtung’s distinction between positive and negative peace provides a foundational lens. Negative peace, according to Galtung, refers to the mere absence of direct violence or war, while positive peace entails the presence of social justice, equity, and the removal of structural violence—indirect harm embedded in social, economic, or political systems that prevents individuals from meeting their basic needs (Galtung, 1976). Structural violence, as a concept, highlights how systemic inequalities can perpetuate harm even in the absence of overt conflict, offering a critical tool to assess whether peace initiatives address deeper societal issues or merely suppress visible tensions.
Complementing Galtung, Emmanuel Murithi’s work emphasizes the ethics of peacebuilding and the importance of reconciliation at multiple levels: macro (national or international), meso (community or regional), and micro (individual or interpersonal). Murithi argues that sustainable peace requires centering local communities in the process, ensuring that peacebuilding is not imposed from above by external actors but is instead rooted in the lived experiences and agency of those most affected by conflict (Murithi, 2009). His framework pushes for a participatory approach, raising ethical questions about whose voices are prioritized in peace initiatives. Together, these lenses allow for a nuanced examination of EPB, focusing on whether it contributes to positive peace and addresses structural violence (via Galtung) and whether it ethically engages communities across different scales (via Murithi).
Defining Environmental Peacebuilding
Environmental peacebuilding is an emerging field that seeks to use environmental cooperation as a tool for conflict resolution and peacebuilding, particularly in contexts where natural resources are sources of tension. According to Dresse et al. (2019), EPB integrates environmental management with peacebuilding efforts, aiming to address resource-related conflicts by fostering collaboration over shared environmental challenges such as water scarcity or land degradation. They suggest that EPB operates through mechanisms like joint resource management projects, which can build trust and dialogue among conflicting parties, potentially transforming adversarial relationships into cooperative ones (Dresse et al., 2019: 102). However, their framework also acknowledges that success depends on contextual factors, including the inclusion of diverse stakeholders.
Similarly, Ide (2019) highlights the potential of EPB but warns of its “dark side.” He argues that environmental cooperation can depoliticize underlying conflicts by focusing on technical solutions rather than addressing deeper power imbalances or structural issues. For instance, joint environmental projects might benefit elite actors or reinforce existing hierarchies rather than empowering marginalized groups, thus undermining long-term peace (Ide, 2019: 15). Both authors agree that while EPB holds promise for creating shared goals across divided communities, it risks becoming a superficial fix if it ignores systemic inequalities or fails to meaningfully involve local populations. This characterization sets the stage for a critical analysis of EPB’s outcomes through the lenses of Galtung and Murithi.
Applying the Lenses: Power, Ethics, and Structural Challenges
Applying Galtung’s framework reveals significant tensions in environmental peacebuilding. While EPB often aims to achieve negative peace by reducing direct conflict over resources—such as through agreements on water sharing—it frequently falls short of fostering positive peace. Galtung’s concept of structural violence becomes particularly relevant here: if EPB initiatives are driven by external actors or technocratic solutions, they may perpetuate systemic inequalities rather than dismantle them. For example, as Ide (2019: 17) notes, large-scale environmental projects often prioritize the interests of powerful stakeholders, such as governments or international organizations, over those of local communities who are most affected by resource scarcity. This can entrench structural violence by sidelining marginalized voices, thus failing to address the root causes of conflict and instead maintaining an unjust status quo.
Moreover, Murithi’s lens of community-centered peacebuilding across macro, meso, and micro levels uncovers ethical risks in EPB. At the macro level, international donors or institutions often dominate EPB initiatives, imposing frameworks that may not align with local needs or cultural contexts. Dresse et al. (2019: 105) acknowledge that while international involvement can provide resources, it risks overshadowing community agency. At the meso and micro levels, the exclusion of local actors from decision-making processes can hinder genuine reconciliation, as Murithi (2009) warns. For instance, a water management project might succeed in establishing cooperation at a surface level but fail to build trust among community members if their grievances—such as historical inequities in resource access—are ignored. Murithi’s emphasis on ethics thus highlights the danger of EPB becoming a top-down imposition rather than a participatory process.
Furthermore, combining these lenses shows how power dynamics shape EPB’s outcomes. Galtung’s structural violence framework suggests that when EPB reinforces existing hierarchies—by prioritizing elite or external interests over local ones—it risks perpetuating harm rather than peace. Murithi’s focus on levels of engagement adds depth to this critique, revealing how power imbalances manifest across different scales. A project may appear successful at the macro level (e.g., a signed agreement between nations) but fail at the micro level if individuals within communities feel excluded or exploited. Indeed, as Ide (2019: 18) argues, EPB can sometimes depoliticize conflict by presenting environmental issues as neutral or technical, thereby avoiding the harder work of addressing political and social injustices. This synthesis underscores a central tension: EPB’s potential to build positive peace depends on whether it shifts power to communities or reinforces existing structures.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this essay has argued that environmental peacebuilding holds significant potential to foster positive peace, but its success is contingent on centering local communities rather than relying on external institutions or technocratic solutions. Through Galtung’s lens, it becomes clear that EPB often prioritizes negative peace over positive peace, risking the perpetuation of structural violence when systemic inequalities are left unaddressed. Murithi’s framework further reveals ethical challenges, emphasizing the need for participatory approaches across macro, meso, and micro levels to ensure genuine reconciliation. Together, these perspectives highlight the importance of power dynamics in EPB, suggesting that initiatives must prioritize local agency to avoid reinforcing hierarchies. Ultimately, for EPB to contribute to sustainable peace, it must move beyond technical fixes and engage deeply with the social and political realities of the communities it seeks to serve. Future research and practice should therefore focus on mechanisms that empower local stakeholders, ensuring that environmental cooperation becomes a tool for justice as much as for conflict resolution.
References
- Dresse, A., Fischhendler, I., Nielsen, J.Ø. and Zikos, D. (2019) Environmental peacebuilding: Towards a theoretical framework. Cooperation and Conflict, 54(1), pp. 99-119.
- Galtung, J. (1976) Three Approaches to Peace. In: Peace, War and Defense: Essays in Peace Research. Copenhagen: Christian Ejlers.
- Ide, T. (2019) The dark side of environmental peacebuilding. World Development, 127, 104777.
- Murithi, E.K. (2009) Introduction. In: The Ethics of Peacebuilding. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Total Word Count: 1023 (including references)
