Key Highlights Peace with Nature requires strategies that integrate human-conflict resolution through sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity (cultivated and wild) while recognizing the role of healthy, multifunctional landscapes in delivering ecological, economic, and social benefits. Holistic approaches that champion nature-based solutions and multifunctional landscapes – while ensuring sustainable use and equitable access to natural resources for local communities and Indigenous peoples – are pivotal in conserving biodiversity, alleviating poverty, and bridging social divides, serving as a fundamental basis for achieving lasting peace. Environmental peacebuilding paves a road to Peace with Nature. Cooperation and effective natural resources management are fundamental to building peaceful human relations and achieving global biodiversity targets. These efforts address the interconnected challenges of sustainable livelihoods, environmental degradation, socio-environmental conflicts, and governance issues. Environmental peacebuilding paves a road to Peace with Nature T h e i n te r c o n n e c te d c h a l l e n g e s of environmental degradation, climate change, governance issues, and armed conflicts have become increasingly prominent across the globe. These challenges are particularly acute in regions where communities depend heavily on natural resources for their livelihoods and well-being. Healthy ecosystems are essential for providing critical resources and services, such as clean water, fertile soil, and climate regulation. These ecosystem services play a vital role in supporting the well-being, resilience, and stability of communities, especially those most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and socio-economic disparities. Conflict and conservation solutions can have varying and sometimes exacerbating impacts on each other.1 Conflict solution, like peace negotiations, can have unintended environmental consequences that may prolong conflicts. For instance, in Colombia, deforestation surged after the 2016 peace agreement that brought an end to 50 years of civil war, as areas once restricted by armed groups became accessible, leading to natural resource extraction and new conflicts over territorial control.2 Likewise, conservation solutions can unintentionally spark conflicts, such as when protected areas are created in a 1 Castro-Nunez et al. (2017) 2 Ganzenmüller et al. (2022) PEACE WITH NATURE Environmental Peacebuilding as a Pathway to 2 | Policy Brief non-participatory way and without social agreements, bypassing communities, or when protected area management plans restrict local communities’ access to and use of natural resources.3 Environmental peacebuilding provides holistic solutions to conflicts that are driven by a complex interplay of factors.4 The drivers of these conflicts are subject to ongoing debate. The field of environmental security identifies causal links between environmental degradation and conflict, often attributing conflicts to intensified resource scarcity. However, it is increasingly recognized that governance restrictions on natural resources access often lie at the heart of these conflicts.5 To better understand these dynamics, attribution science plays a crucial role in identifying the specific factors contributing to conflict. Environmental peacebuilding builds on this understanding, going beyond diagnosis to offer actionable strategies that leverage sustainable resources management and address governance and resources access issues to prevent and resolve conflicts.6 By doing so, environmental peacebuilding paves the way for enduring Peace with Nature. Fostering environmental cooperation, sustainable natural resources management, and sustainable livelihoods paves the road for building a peaceful relationship with nature.7, 8 These efforts focus not just on conflict resolution but on creating a cooperative framework that nurtures peaceful coexistence through environmental sustainability. This integrated approach emphasizes the constructive role of environmental management in uniting communities and fostering long-term stability and resilience. The recent emergence and conceptualization of environmental peacebuilding offers governments strategies that can deliver on multiple fronts. Environmental peacebuilding emphasizes the identification and development of approaches, such as sustainable land uses and practices, that maximize synergies and minimize trade-offs among environmental, economic, social, and conflict dimensions, simultaneously advancing 3 Andrade-Pérez et al. (2018) 4 Castro-Nunez (2018) 5 United Nations Environment Programme et al. (2009) 6 Ide et al. (2021) 7 Morales-Muñoz et al. (2022) 8 Ide et al. (2021) toward targets set by of the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and other Rio Conventions. Foundations for long- lasting Peace with Nature Achieving Peace with Nature hinges on addressing several foundational challenges that intersect environmental, social, and governance domains. Solutions must address the needs of people and nature simultaneously. This involves developing strategies that promote good governance, uphold community and nature’s rights, and ensure equitable access and benefit-sharing of natural resources while moving toward a shared vision where people and nature live in harmony. To balance conservation and conflict-resolution needs while achieving sustainable development, solutions must also foster biodiversity- supportive economies, resilient livelihoods, and food and nutrition security. For instance, past and ongoing efforts9 have used participatory approaches to design biodiverse agroforestry systems, sustainable business models, and zero-deforestation value chains, helping to harmonize peacebuilding efforts with economic and environmental objectives, and ensuring that both people and nature thrive in tandem. Biodiversity-supportive economies are essential for fostering both environmental sustainability and social stability, making them a critical component in achieving Peace with Nature. Such economies integrate ecological sustainability with economic development. This is particularly important in conflict- prone areas where insecure livelihoods and economic instability are often linked to illicit activities, violent conflict, and peacebuilding failure.10 By supporting economic activities that align with biodiversity conservation, these economies help reduce the drivers of conflict, such as resource scarcity and competition, which are often exacerbated by poor governance and inequitable access to resources.11 Effective natural resource governance is crucial to sustaining peace, particularly in regions recovering from conflict. Scientific evidence underscores 9 https://alliancebioversityciat.org/projects/international-climate-initia- tive-iki-project 10 Cederman & Vogt (2017) 11 Castro-Nunez et al. (2016) https://alliancebioversityciat.org/projects/international-climate-initiative-iki-project https://alliancebioversityciat.org/projects/international-climate-initiative-iki-project 3Environmental Peacebuilding as a Pathway to Peace with Nature that robust governance of natural resources can significantly contribute to peacebuilding by reducing political instability and fostering cooperation among communities. Strong governance structures, such as those in Indigenous territories, help to manage natural resources equitably, reducing competition and grievances that often lead to conflict. Moreover, governance that promotes transparency, accountability, and inclusivity strengthens the legitimacy of institutions, fostering trust between the state and its citizens.12 This, in turn, enhances societies’ resilience to conflict, making governance both a facilitator of environmental sustainability and a critical foundation for enduring peace at local, national, and global levels. Conflict-sensitive approaches must be integrated into sustainable natural resource use and conservation planning. National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) provide a crucial framework for incorporating these approaches at the national level. These efforts must be designed with an awareness of local and national socio- political dynamics to prevent exacerbating existing tensions or creating new conflicts. By adopting conflict-sensitive conservation and sustainable land use strategies, we can ensure that interventions support peacebuilding objectives while contributing to achieving environmental goals. This approach also requires continuous dialogue with local communities, transparent decision-making and accountability processes at multiple levels, and the inclusion of marginalized voices in decision-making to ensure that these efforts are equitable and sustainable. Building trust and fostering cooperation between communities and conservation stakeholders are essential for creating resilient multifunctional landscapes that support both biodiversity and human well-being. Illegal activities – such as land grabbing and the alarming rate of violence against social and environmental leaders and defenders – must be addressed to achieve sustainable peace. These defenders – who face intimidation, violence, and death – are often at the frontline of natural resources protection. Illegal activities such as deforestation, land grabbing, and coca leaf production are frequently reinforced by weak enforcement of environmental 12 Krampe et al. (2021) regulations. In some regions, these illegal activities are also linked to territorial control strategies by armed groups and are used as means for land usurpation. These illicit activities not only degrade the environment, but also destabilize communities and fuel ongoing conflicts. Addressing these issues requires a multifaceted approach, including strengthening legal frameworks and enforcement mechanisms, protecting social and environmental defenders, enhancing local governance networks, and providing alternative livelihood options that are environmentally sustainable. Additionally, fostering governance through transparency and accountability mechanisms can help disrupt the cycle of violence and illegal exploitation. A certain level of social and institutional “readiness” is essential for the success of environmental peacebuilding initiatives. The presence of armed groups and ongoing conflicts can create an environment where implementing conservation or peacebuilding actions is not feasible or safe. Social and institutional readiness includes the capacity building and development of local institutions to govern effectively, the presence of social cohesion, and the ability to enforce laws and agreements. These efforts in capacity building and institutional readiness also serve as critical means of implementing the GBF. In areas where armed groups are active, efforts to build peace and protect the environment must be carefully timed and contextually adapted, often requiring preliminary steps to build trust, stabilize the region, and engage all stakeholders, including former combatants. Ensuring that communities are prepared and willing to participate in peacebuilding efforts is crucial to achieving long-term success. Adequate and sustained financing for environmental peacebuilding needs to be secured. Traditional funding mechanisms often fall short in addressing the complex and long-term nature of these initiatives. At COP16, discussions around funding mechanisms for biodiversity will be a political priority, and there is growing interest in launching a Coalition for Peace with Nature. As part of these discussions, prioritizing funding streams that integrate both biodiversity conservation and peacebuilding will be critical.13 Harnessing such funding, and learning from previous mechanisms, can yield significant benefits for 13 Löhr et al. (2022) 4 | Policy Brief biodiversity, ecosystems, and the communities that depend on them, providing a pathway for long-term environmental and social resilience. Bridging Peace with Nature and the Global Biodiversity Framework By linking biodiversity conservation efforts with peacebuilding efforts, we can bridge the GBF with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The experiences on peacebuilding can translate into operational mechanisms to backstop GBF implementation mechanisms. In this way, environmental peacebuilding perspectives can bridge nature with sustainable development by integrating the needs and rights of people and nature, aligning with SDG 16 for Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions. Peacebuilding efforts often resemble development programs in that their outcomes contribute to multiple objectives, making it challenging to attribute specific results to a single goal. This multidimensional approach aligns well with the goals of the Rio Conventions on climate change and desertification, demonstrating that harmonizing conservation and conflict resolution can simultaneously generate climate, land, and biodiversity benefits. Strengthening conservation, peace, and sustainable development connections catalyzes transformative changes, guiding us toward the 2050 vision of living in harmony with nature. By fostering inclusive and participatory processes, environmental peacebuilding ensures that the benefits of sustainable development are equitably distributed, reducing inequalities and enhancing social equity as a fundamental basis for peace. Through development strategies that integrate sustainable use with climate mitigation and adaptation, environmental health, and biodiversity conservation, environmental peacebuilding fosters synergies between ecological sustainability and socio- economic progress.14 It facilitates the development of resilient communities and ecosystems, ensuring that sustainable practices contribute to both environmental protection and social equity, respecting the rights of nature and people. This approach aligns 14 Castro-Nunez (2018) with the GBF’s implementation considerations, which emphasize the contributions and rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, as well as a human rights-based approach. These efforts can be backstopped by leveraging technology, such as remote sensing, artificial intelligence, and mobile-based data collection, to track environmental changes and the effectiveness of peacebuilding measures. Establishing clear accountability mechanisms is also essential to ensure that all stakeholders – including governments, non- governmental organizations (NGOs), and private- sector actors – adhere to agreed-upon standards and commitments. Building local capacity for monitoring and involving communities in these processes (such as through citizen science) can enhance the long- term credibility, ownership, and sustainability of the outcomes. During the technical tours of the SLUS project, producers received training on harvest and post-harvest processes. ( CIAT / E. Ramírez) 5Environmental Peacebuilding as a Pathway to Peace with Nature Solutions Case studies showcasing how environmental peacebuilding and sustainable practices contribute to Peace with Nature and the implementation of the GBF A model of CGIAR’s commitment to environmental peacebuilding is the SLUS project, led by the Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT and funded by the International Climate Initiative.15 This pioneering initiative has demonstrated how sustainable land use systems (SLUS) in Colombia can integrate peacebuilding, climate change mitigation, and resilient livelihoods in conflict-affected regions. By promoting zero-deforestation agroforestry, supporting the development of inclusive business models, and integrating local communities into sustainable and zero-deforestation value chains, the project has provided smallholder farmers with viable economic alternatives to illicit activities. Central to this success has been the participatory approach, which actively involved local communities in decision-making, project design, and implementation. The SLUS Project achieved significant progress in Colombia’s conflict zones by focusing on social cohesion as the central pillar of its approach to SLUS for cattle and cocoa production. The project recognized the importance of long-lasting peace for sustainable development and thus incorporated peacebuilding efforts into all aspects of its work. The project’s contribution to peacebuilding was achieved through participatory processes that fostered social cohesion and improved collaboration among stakeholders. By actively engaging community members, local authorities, and experts in the co-design of SLUS and value chain upgrading strategies, the project ensured that the solutions addressed local needs. This approach built trust and empowered local communities to play a key role in peacebuilding. Research conducted within the project framework highlighted how co-design provided spaces for training, dialogue, and knowledge exchange, which strengthened relationships and collaboration among farmers. Sustainable agriculture was promoted through the development of land use systems designed to maintain 15 https://alliancebioversityciat.org/proects/ international-climate-initiative-iki-project or increase forest cover. The project identified barriers to the adoption of these systems, conducted cost-benefit analyses, and worked with local stakeholders to design upgrading strategies. These systems promoted biodiversity conservation and climate change mitigation, while also generating co-benefits related to soil and water resources. The SLUS developed under the project increased aboveground biomass carbon stocks and reduced nitrous oxide emissions, demonstrating a clear impact on climate goals. Multi-level engagement was a crucial aspect of the project. Multi-stakeholder platforms were established, bringing together actors from different stages of the value chain to devise strategies for overcoming barriers to SLUS adoption. These platforms evolved into formal departmental committees, ensuring long-term sustainability. Engagement with government officials aligned project activities with national and regional priorities, while financial institutions and the public/private sectors were encouraged to integrate SLUS into their investments and business models. The project’s results directly influenced government initiatives such as the bovine livestock NAMA (Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action) and peacebuilding efforts. Capacity building was another key outcome of the project. Researchers, entrepreneurs, and farmers benefited from education and training initiatives. The project supported 13 PhD and Master’s students – predominantly women and individuals from the Global South – to complete their studies. Additionally, the Sustainable Cocoa Innovation Challenge was launched, fostering innovation and entrepreneurial spirit within the cocoa sector by accelerating promising business models from conflict-affected regions. Moving forward, scaling out the SLUS project is essential to extend these benefits to more regions, amplifying its impact and contributing to broader environmental peacebuilding goals. CASE STUDY #1 COLOMBIA https://alliancebioversityciat.org/projects/international-climate-initiative-iki-project https://alliancebioversityciat.org/projects/international-climate-initiative-iki-project 6 | Policy Brief Participatory rangeland management (PRM) is a process that builds communities’ capacity to better manage, govern, and restore their lands.16 Piloted in Ethiopia in 201217, PRM has since been scaled across over 1 million hectares and is now being implemented in Kenya and Tanzania, led by the CGIAR Research Initiative on Livestock and Climate. Some of the main outcomes of PRM are strengthening governance of grazing lands, improving communities’ organizational ability and skill sets to deal with new rangeland challenges, and building women’s capacity to participate in PRM decision-making processes.18 Rangeland productivity has increased, communities’ security of tenure to their land and resources has improved, and their incentives to invest in rangeland restoration have been strengthened. Though not explicitly seeking to resolve local community conflicts, PRM has also built peace.19 By bringing multiple land users together, PRM provides space for discussions on resource use, challenges, and solutions, allowing the development of a common vision for a rangeland unit. Through collectively establishing and implementing a rangeland management plan, 16 IGAD Centre for Pastoral Areas and Livestock Development (ICPALD) (2024) 17 Flintan & Cullis (2010) 18 Waweru et al. (2021) 19 https://bit.ly/4dQ4DFQ and, where appropriate, formalizing a rangeland management agreement with local government, PRM has alleviated land and resource pressures, resolved local differences, and enhanced collaboration. Additionally, with more-inclusive decision-making processes in place, decisions impacting women and youth better respond to their needs. Realizing the potential of PRM to build peace, the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) is working with the Intergovernmental Authority for Development (IGAD), the Supporting Pastoralism and Agriculture in Recurrent and Protracted Crises (SPARC) project, governments, National Agricultural Research Systems, NGOs, and communities to scale up PRM, with a more explicit and targeted component on peacebuilding. This will include activities to increase inclusivity in decision-making processes, further strengthen the rangeland management collective, invest in negotiating processes involving a wider number of landscape actors, support establishing a community-based conflict early warning system, and implement peacebuilding actions such as peace crusade, theatre, and song. CASE STUDY #2 KENYA AND TANZANIA Participatory rangeland management is proving to be an effective approach for local peacebuilding. ( ILRI/Mohammed Said) https://www.cgiar.org/news-events/news/conflict-resolution-through-participatory-rangeland-management-a-case-study-from-osobey-globo-rangeland-unit-filtu-woreda-somali-region-ethiopia/ 7Environmental Peacebuilding as a Pathway to Peace with Nature Community seed banks (CSBs) are grassroots institutions that conserve, store, and distribute seeds among local farmers. These banks serve as repositories of genetic diversity, safeguarding Indigenous and locally adapted crop varieties that might otherwise be lost. Beyond their agricultural and environmental benefits, CSBs have profound cultural and social implications. In regions like Tigray and Amhara, Ethiopia – where communities have faced challenges related to conflict, resource scarcity, and social division – the CSBs established with CGIAR support play a pivotal role in fostering social cohesion and peacebuilding. Seed banks in Ethiopia’s Tigray and Amhara regions pool seeds and agricultural knowledge, fostering collaboration and mutual support among farmers. This shared resource model promotes unity, interdependence, and strengthens relationships, allowing farmers to operate as part of a network rather than in isolation. Another key focus of these seed banks is the preservation of Indigenous and locally adapted seed varieties, and the knowledge associated with them. These seeds are often tied to the cultural identity and heritage of the community. By maintaining these varieties, CSBs help preserve the cultural fabric of the community, fostering pride and a strong sense of belonging among its members. The act of conserving these seeds becomes a collective expression of cultural preservation, which in turn strengthens social bonds. As community members work together to protect their shared heritage, they build a sense of pride, solidarity, and trust that is crucial for social cohesion. Access to diverse, productive, and resilient seed varieties through CSBs is critical for ensuring food security. When communities have a stable food supply, the likelihood of conflict over scarce resources diminishes. In regions like Tigray and Amhara, where food insecurity can lead to tensions and competition for scarce resources, CSBs offer a buffer against these risks. By providing a reliable source of seeds that can withstand climate variability and other challenges, these seed banks contribute to the community’s stability and resilience, reducing the potential for conflict over scarce resources. Community seed banks necessitate ongoing dialogue and cooperation among members and management to ensure collective decisions on seed selection, storage, and distribution. This fosters trust and peaceful conflict resolution. Community seed banks also involve marginalized groups in decision-making, promoting social harmony and equitable resources management. They empower these groups, reducing social tensions and fostering a more cohesive community structure. In Tigray and Amhara, where the impacts of conflict and social division have been significant, CSBs serve as a vital tool for peacebuilding and social cohesion, preserving cultural heritage, ensuring food security, facilitating dialogue, and empowering marginalized groups, thereby contributing to broader societal goals. CASE STUDY #3 ETHIOPIA Training in Mekelle for the CSB survey. ( CIAT/M. Ngaiwi) 8 | Policy Brief The RUTAS PDET Program, part of the European Peace Fund portfolio in Colombia, focuses on promoting environmental conservation and economic development in PDET territories. The Development Programs with a Territorial Approach (PDET) are a central component of the peacebuilding process outlined in the agreement between the Colombian government and the FARC-EP. These programs aim to socioeconomically revitalize the regions most affected by the conflict by strengthening key areas such as education, health, agricultural production, land use planning, infrastructure, and housing. PDETs are based on a participatory, bottom-up approach. The program empowers farmer, Indigenous, and Afro-Colombian communities affected by the armed conflict through novel strategies that include establishing local financial models and building their technical, financial, and administrative skills. Additionally, the program supports former combatants by integrating their rural enterprises, such as forest seed production, with agroforestry interventions like cacao cultivation. This strategy fosters sustainable livelihoods and strengthens social organization in post-conflict regions. The project has made significant progress in advancing sustainable peacebuilding in Colombia’s conflict-affected territories. Notably, 1,429 new hectares have been placed under voluntary conservation agreements, including forests, agroforestry systems (AFS), silvopastoral systems (SPS), and restoration efforts. Additionally, 1,474 hectares have been developed with sustainable livestock systems, incorporating SPS and AFS with cacao.20 20 https://www.fondoeuropeoparalapaz.eu/project/implementacion-de-ru- tas-productivas-pdet-para-la-estabilizacion/ CASE STUDY #4 COLOMBIA Over 1,000 producers have been trained in new sustainable livestock technologies, focusing on improved forage systems, SPS, and efficient resources use. Moreover, 662 cacao producers have received technical training in agroforestry, clone management, and good agricultural practices, with ongoing support for adopting sustainable practices. These efforts aim to foster inclusive and sustainable economic growth and enhance the resilience of the cocoa and dairy value chains in these regions. The project has also improved 288 kilometers of roads through infrastructure work managed by six community “management and maintenance” committees. This initiative not only enhances the infrastructure that is crucial to the region’s production chains, thereby boosting competitiveness, but also strengthens community cooperation. Furthermore, two companies have signed co-investment agreements prioritizing women-led enterprises, providing a boost to the performance of small- and medium-sized rural businesses. These achievements contribute significantly to sustainable development and peacebuilding by empowering local communities, fostering economic resilience, and promoting equitable opportunities in regions most affected by conflict. Cocoa is promoted as a peace crop in Colombia because improve rural well-being through agricultural development with positive impact on cacao farmers’ incomes. ( CIAT / J.P.Marín) https://www.fondoeuropeoparalapaz.eu/project/implementacion-de-rutas-productivas-pdet-para-la-estabilizacion/ https://www.fondoeuropeoparalapaz.eu/project/implementacion-de-rutas-productivas-pdet-para-la-estabilizacion/ 9Environmental Peacebuilding as a Pathway to Peace with Nature To effectively advance environmental peacebuilding and achieve Peace with Nature, the following recommendations are proposed: 1. Integrate environmental peacebuilding into national and international policies: Decision- makers should incorporate environmental peacebuilding principles into national development plans, conflict resolution strategies, and international frameworks. This integration will ensure that peacebuilding efforts are aligned with environmental sustainability goals, facilitating the creation of resilient communities and ecosystems. 2. Mobilize adequate and sustained financing: Securing sustained financial resources is essential for the successful implementation of environmental peacebuilding initiatives. Governments, international organizations, and private-sector actors should collaborate to mobilize funding through innovative mechanisms, such as climate finance, green bonds, and payment for ecosystem services schemes. Colombia’s “Works for Taxes” (from the Spanish Obras por Impuestos) mechanism offers a promising avenue to leverage private-sector resources for conservation and development outcomes. This policy allows companies to directly invest in local development projects in exchange for tax deductions, which can be strategically used to support biodiversity conservation and sustainable development in conflict-affected regions. However, scaling such initiatives requires a clear policy framework and political commitment, strong public-private partnerships, and rigorous monitoring to ensure that funds are effectively used to achieve both environmental and social objectives. 3. Strengthen governance and institutional capacities: Enhancing governance frameworks and institutional capacities is crucial for addressing the root causes of socio-environmental conflicts. This includes improving transparency, accountability, and representation in natural resources management, as well as building local governments’ and institutions’ capacity to effectively manage conflicts over resources. 4. Promote inclusive and participatory approaches: It is essential to involve local communities, Indigenous Peoples, and other key stakeholders in the design, implementation, and monitoring of environmental peacebuilding initiatives. By leveraging their knowledge and ensuring their active participation, these initiatives can be more effective, contextually relevant, and sustainable. Additionally, empowering women and marginalized groups in decision-making processes can contribute to more equitable and just outcomes. 5. Support sustainable livelihoods and biodiversity-supportive economies: Developing and promoting sustainable livelihoods that are in harmony with biodiversity conservation is key to reducing reliance on illicit activities and fostering long-term peace. Initiatives that support agroforestry, sustainable agriculture, and eco- friendly enterprises should be prioritized for scaling up, with a focus on creating value chains that benefit both people and the environment. Recommendations 10 | Policy Brief Bibliography Andrade-Pérez, G. I., Chaves, M. E., Corzo, G., & Tapia Caicedo, C. (2018). Creación y administración de “naturalezas protegidas”. In Transiciones Socioecológicas Hacia La Sostenibilidad. Gestión de La Biodiversidad En Los Procesos de Cambio En El Territorio Continental Colombiano. Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt. URL: https://allbiociat.org/405mfdG Castro-Nunez, A. (2018). Responding to climate change in tropical countries emerging from armed conflicts: harnessing climate finance, peacebuilding, and sustainable food. Forests, 9(10), 621. Castro-Nunez, A., Mertz, O., & Quintero, M. (2016). Propensity of farmers to conserve forest within REDD+ projects in areas affected by armed-conflict. Forest Policy and Economics, 66, 22–30. Castro-Nunez, A., Mertz, O., & Sosa, C. C. (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), 54014. Cederman, L.-E., & Vogt, M. (2017). Dynamics and Logics of Civil War. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 61(9), 1992–2016. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002717721385 Flintan, F., & Cullis, A. (2010). Introductory guidelines to participatory rangeland management in pastoral areas. Save the Children. URL: https://hdl.handle.net/10568/99430 Ganzenmüller, R., Sylvester, J. M., & Castro-Nunez, A. (2022). What Peace Means for Deforestation: An Analysis of Local Deforestation Dynamics in Times of Conflict and Peace in Colombia. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.803368 IGAD Centre for Pastoral Areas and Livestock Development (ICPALD). (2024). Participatory rangeland management: Guidelines for practitioners. URL: https://hdl.handle.net/10568/145167 Krampe, F., Hegazi, F., & VanDeveer, S. D. (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 Löhr, K., Morales-Muñoz, H., Rodriguez, T., Lozano, C., Del Rio, M., Hachmann, S., Bonatti, M., Pazmino, J., Castro- Nuñez, A., & Sieber, S. (2022). Integrating the concept of peacebuilding in sustainability impact assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 95, 106803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2022.106803 Morales-Muñoz, H., Bailey, A., Löhr, K., Caroli, G., Villarino, Ma. E. J., LoboGuerrero, A. M., Bonatti, M., Siebert, S., & Castro- Nuñez, A. (2022). Co-Benefits Through Coordination of Climate Action and Peacebuilding: A System Dynamics Model. Journal of Peacebuilding & Development, 17(3), 304–323. https://doi.org/10.1177/15423166221132149 United Nations Environment Programme, Richard A. Matthew, Oli Brown, & David Jensen. (2009). From conflict to peacebuilding: The role of natural resources and the environment. In S. Halle (Ed.), Green Planet Blues: Critical Perspectives on Global Environmental Politics. UNEP/Earthprint. Waweru, T., Maina, J., Liheta, B., & Apunda, E. W. (2021). Independent impact assessment report: Participatory Rangeland Management (PRM) in Kenya and Tanzania. URL: https://hdl.handle.net/10568/118128 Authors This note was written by Janelle M. Sylvester and Augusto Castro-Nunez (Alliance of Bioversity International and the International Center for Tropical Agriculture-CIAT), with inputs from Carolina Navarrete (Alliance Bioversity-CIAT), Fiona Flintan (International Livestock Research Institute), Ignacio Madurga Lopez, Mary Eyeniyeh Ngaiwi, Diana María Gutiérrez-Zapata, Martha Vanegas-Cubillos, Natalia Estrada Carmona (Alliance Bioversity-CIAT), and Cargele Masso (CGIAR System Organization). Contact Augusto Castro, augusto.castro@cgiar.org https://repository.humboldt.org.co/entities/publication/a2ba24a5-14de-42d5-a601-543ab1ac698e https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022002717721385 https://hdl.handle.net/10568/99430 https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.803368 https://hdl.handle.net/10568/145167 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105508 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2022.106803 https://doi.org/10.1177/15423166221132149 https://hdl.handle.net/10568/118128 mailto:augusto.castro%40cgiar.org?subject= 11Environmental Peacebuilding as a Pathway to Peace with Nature Acknowledgements We would like to thank the CGIAR System Organization, including the CGIAR Environmental Health and Biodiversity Impact Area Platform and the following CGIAR Research Initiatives: Mitigate+: Research for Low-Emission Food Systems, AgriLAC Resiliente, National Policies and Strategies, and Livestock and Climate. We would also like to thank the project Environmental Peacebuilding for Improved Nutrition and Emission Reductions (EPINER) in Cauca and Putumayo supported by the Ireland’s Department of Foreign Affairs and the following Alliance Bioversity&CIAT staff: Carlo Fadda and Dejene K. Mengistu for their support with Case Study #3; Olga Spellman (Science Writing Service) for copy editing of this paper; and Diana S. Castaño for design and layout. CIAT / V. Yomayuza October 2024cgiar.orgalliancebioversityciat.org The Alliance and ILRI are part of CGIAR, a global research partnership for a food-secure future dedicated to transforming food, land and water systems in a climate crisis. Cover illustration: CIAT CIAT/J. M. Marín http://cgiar.org http://alliancebioversityciat.org