Nature as Common Ground: An Interview with Bernd Unger on Environmental Peacebuilding

Bernd, you have been involved with the Environmental Peacebuilding Association since 2019 and since 2020 chair its Forest Interest Group. What first drew you to the link between environment, conflict and peacebuilding?

A few years ago, I started asking myself what the actual reasons were for some of our projects going well and others not so well. Sometimes the reasons are technical, but more often than not they are interpersonal. People don't feel involved; the reasoning behind participants' viewpoints isn't explained; there are differing interpretations of terms, roles and responsibilities, and so on. Ultimately, it comes down to a lack of effective communication. Conflicts arise that are addressed far too rarely and almost never dealt with professionally. This led me to undertake intercultural mediation training between 2014 and 2016. 

The move towards environmental issues – and with it, environmental peacebuilding – was, on the one hand, a logical step, as our projects repeatedly touch on conflicts over natural resources. On the other hand, it came about rather by chance. In 2018, while carrying out a feasibility study for KfW, I conducted a Peace and Conflict Assessment (PCA). About two hours after submitting the report, I received a 'Call for Abstracts' from the Environmental Peacebuilding Association – an organisation I had never heard of before. I used the data from the PCA, submitted an abstract, was accepted and was invited to present at the 1st International Conference on Environmental Peacebuilding at the University of California, Irvine. I went – entirely at my own expense, as it happens.

From your perspective, why do forestry, agriculture and natural resources play such an important role in preventing conflict and supporting peace in fragile contexts?

Forests, agriculture and natural resources more broadly play a dual role. They are frequently the cause of conflicts, but time and again they are also part of the solution. The root causes of conflict can be identified at both a local and a global scale. Farmers dispute access to forest resources with the authorities; countries wage armed conflicts over claims to mineral wealth. Equally, there are many examples of communities finding common ground and arriving at a genuine win-win situation by managing natural resources for the benefit of all. 

The important role you refer to in your question relates, of course, to this second scenario – and here, too, communication is central. When people work together – for instance, where some make a payment (as in payments for environmental services) so that others can protect a forest containing a water source on which everyone depends – a synergy emerges that offers a realistic prospect of long-term sustainability.

You recently co-authored EnPAx glossary chapters on forestry, agriculture and natural resources. What are some of the most important ideas or misunderstandings these chapters help to clarify?

The book Essential Concepts of Environmental Peacebuilding: An A–Z Guide, published in June 2026, was compiled under the leadership of the Environmental Peacebuilding Association (EnPAx). As co-chair of the EnPAx Forests Interest Group (FIG), it was only natural to work on this glossary together with fellow members of the group. We wrote the chapters on Forests, Agriculture and Natural Resources.

To answer your question, I'll use forests as an example. First, it is important to understand that establishing a universally applicable definition of the term "forest" is surprisingly difficult. Some define forests in terms of vegetation or land use, whilst others approach them from a cultural, spiritual or recreational standpoint. The perspective of indigenous peoples, in particular, must be recognised. This illustrates that forests are far more than a source of timber or non-timber forest products (NTFPs). A further point is that forests are both ecosystems and, simultaneously, a reflection of how humans manage those ecosystems. All of this feeds directly into the role of forests in conflict. As noted above, forests can be both a cause of conflict – most often over land use – and part of the solution.

Looking ahead, what do you think needs more attention from policymakers, donors and practitioners if environmental peacebuilding is to have greater impact?

Conflicts are part of everyday life. They are not a problem in themselves, in many cases, they actually present an opportunity for improvement. However, this requires that conflicts – or more precisely, conflict resolution – are handled professionally. That demands not only specialist knowledge but also financial resources, which in the context of environmental conflicts often poses a significant challenge. 

Take this example: if neighbours in Germany are arguing over a branch overhanging a fence and bring in a mediator, they split the costs equally. But if a national park authority denies indigenous peoples access to their burial sites because they fall within the park's core zone, the question of who should bear the costs of conflict resolution – which need not always involve formal mediation – becomes far more complex. The indigenous community will be neither willing nor able to do so. The national park authority may have the financial means, but how is it supposed to appoint an impartial mediator? Possible, perhaps, but unlikely. Funding would therefore need to come from an independent body. To make that happen, a dedicated fund for conflict resolution would be needed – not unlike a fund for natural disaster response.