The question of ownership—that is, who is included and excluded from policy processes—has become one of the most pressing issues in the global discourse on peace and conflict. While research shows that the inclusion of domestic actors is critical to success, broader international processes often neglect these actors. Focused on environmental peacebuilding—the sustainable management of natural resources in post-conflict settings—as an emerging area, this article employs qualitative content analysis (QCA) to study four core reports of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)’s Environmental Cooperation for Peacebuilding Programme (2008–2015). The results reveal that the framing of environmental peacebuilding in these documents contributes to power inequalities being reinforced. The reports’ language suggests that, overall, UNEP favors international ownership of environmental peacebuilding. By contrast, local actors—both state and non-state—appear to be considered a risk in the context of natural resource management. This article discusses the implications of this lack of inclusion for peacebuilding practice.

所有权问题，即谁被包括在政策程序中，而被排除在政策程序之外，已经成为全球关于和平与冲突的最紧迫的问题之一。尽管研究表明，将国内行为者包括在内对于成功至关重要，但更广泛的国际程序往往忽略了这些行为者。本文将重点放在环境和平建设（冲突后环境中自然资源的可持续管理）这一新兴领域，利用定性内容分析（QCA）研究了联合国环境规划署（UNEP）的《环境合作与发展报告》的四项核心报告。建设和平方案（2008-2015年）。结果表明，这些文件中对环境建设和平的框架加剧了权力不平等。报告的语言表明，总体而言，环境署赞成建立环境和平建设的国际所有权。相比之下，在自然资源管理的背景下，地方行为者（无论是国家行为者还是非国家行为者）似乎都被视为一种风险。本文讨论了缺乏包容性对建设和平实践的影响。