STOCKHOLM, Sweden, Aug 29 (IPS) – The impacts of climate change are disproportionate having an impact fragile and conflict-affected environments (FCS). Climate shocks can worsening of security risks in FCS, conflict and instability compromise the ability of a region to adapt to climate change, making its population increasingly vulnerable to future climate shocks.
This creates the risk that crises will reinforce each other and spiral out of control.
Similarly, climate adaptation – measures to increase resilience to climate change – can reduce conflict risks and potentially contribute to lasting peace. This is why international gatherings such as last year’s COP28 climate summit (30 November-12 December 2023) and the (27-29 February) World Bank Fragility Forumhave emphasized the need for greater climate action in FCS and for approaches that address climate adaptation and peace simultaneously.
However, climate adaptation in FCS is made particularly challenging by, among other things, the volatility of the context, safety risks for people associated with the work and high costs. Several approaches have been proposed to address some of these issues and adaptation projects in FCS be more effective not only in building climate resilience, but also in addressing conflict risks.
A review of policy and strategic documents published by five donors actively supporting climate adaptation in FCS – the African Development Bank (AfDB), the Global Environmental Facility (GEF), the World Bank, and the Dutch and Danish Ministries of Foreign Affairs – suggests that such approaches are beginning to take root at the policy level. This blog focuses on how five such approaches were reflected in the documents.
Integrated Climate Security Assessments
It is argued that integrated assessments of both climate and conflict aspects are crucial for designing climate adaptation measures that do not increase conflict risk and ideally contribute to creating conditions for sustainable peace.
While each of the five donors recognizes the links between climate change and security at the policy level, only a few conduct integrated assessments. For example, a few from the World Bank climate change country risk profiles delve into the intersection with safety concerns.
Including the profiles for Ethiopia And Yemen highlight the risk of predicted climate change and extreme weather events that could increase tensions around natural resources, food insecurity and migration.
Yet, even in these country profiles, the analysis of climate-security links appears somewhat ad hoc; none of the five donors appears to use a systematic methodology to assess these links and how adaptation may affect them.
Peace positive ambitions and activities
A ‘peace positive’ approach to climate adaptation, for example, involves defining peace-related objectives and indicators of success for an adaptation project. The approach might also include, for example: activities aimed at in promoting dialogue, ensuring fair distribution of resources and building the state’s capacity to alleviate local tensions.
Denmark program for the vulnerable border areas of Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger combines climate adaptation with facilitating community dialogue and mediation on access to resources. In a Report 2018The GEF’s Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel (STAP) urged the GEF to seize opportunities ‘to actively contribute to conflict prevention, not only by reducing the vulnerabilities of specific stakeholders, but also by strengthening institutions for environmental cooperation and equitable resource management’.
However, it is unclear whether this advice was followed. Furthermore, there was little sign of peace-positive activities from any of the five donors. Similarly, there were no examples of climate adaptation projects with specific indicators of impact on peace.
It is important to recognize that peace-promoting efforts may exceed the mandates and capacities of many climate adaptation actors.
Cooperation and coordination with other actors
The World Humanitarian Summit 2016 stressed that cooperation and coordination between humanitarian, development and peacebuilding (HDP) actors is necessary to better address climate change and conflict-related challenges, such as population displacement.
For example, climate adaptation actors new to an area can benefit from the knowledge, experience and local connections of humanitarian and peacebuilding actors already active there.
Calls for such collaboration and cooperation have become commonplace among international actors in the field of HDP. Yet, in practice, it is rare: HDP and climate adaptation projects continue to operate in isolation. Challenges to collaboration and cooperation include the varying levels of involvement timelines and methodologies of different actors.
There are positive signs, however. For example, the African Development Bank’s Strategy for addressing vulnerability and building resilience in Africa (2022-2026) emphasises the value of collaboration ‘among many actors’, harnessing the relative advantages of each actor in the ‘multi-dimensional challenge’ of addressing fragility.
Some recent developments of the AfDB country strategies indicate that steps have been taken to map other development partners active in the country, indicating a willingness to put this principle into practice.
Participatory and inclusive approaches
Another generally accepted principle is that projects have a greater chance of success with the participation of key stakeholders and the inclusion of different groups affected by the project, as this, among other things, increases the likelihood that the project will respond to local needs and realities, which in turn creates a stronger sense of belonging. locally owned.
In FCS, it is even more important to understand how different groups can benefit or lose from a project and how interventions can create or deepen local tensions. Inclusive, participatory approaches are therefore essential to ensure conflict-sensitive and peace-positive outcomes.
The Global Climate Strategy of the Netherlands advocates a people-centred approach, with equality and inclusion as guiding principles. ‘Locally-led adaptation’ and ‘meaningful participation’ are prioritised to better understand local needs and benefit from the knowledge and experiences of local people, especially vulnerable groups.
In the same way, the AfDB policies promote a more intensive engagement with civil society. An example of this in practice can be seen in a project on sustainable water management in the East Nile region, integrating community feedback and validation processes that provided insight into local perceptions of the project.
Flexibility and adaptability
Several previous climate adaptation projects had to be halted or relocated when conflict broke out. This has got the blame partly because of the inflexibility of the projects’ designs: they were only suitable for a fixed set of pre-conflict conditions.
Because volatility is a feature of FCS, there are flexible approaches that allow timelines, budgets and activities to be adjusted in response to changing contexts. making projects more effective and staying relevant.
The The Netherlands lists ‘modular’ programme design as one of the ‘special methods’ it uses for development cooperation in fragile areas. This allows different parts of a programme to be adapted in response to changes in the situation on the ground without jeopardising the entire programme.
The World Bank reports that while current guidance provides a ‘range of operational flexibilities’, project teams have not always used these. It acknowledges that ‘efforts are needed to ensure that teams are aware of and feel empowered to use flexibilities when appropriate, so that practice is consistent with policy’.
Looking ahead
Major donors appear to be aware of important ways to facilitate effective, peace-positive climate adaptation in FCS, based on their policies and strategies. This is promising, but there is limited evidence of how, or if, this awareness is translated into practice. There is an urgent need to share insights and experiences on how this can be done effectively.
The findings are based on a document analysis conducted by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) for the Global Center on Adaptation Water and Urban Program.
Ann-Sophie Böhle is a research assistant at the SIPRI Climate Change and Risk Programme.
IPS UN Office
© Inter Press Service (2024) — All rights reservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service
