The consequences of climate change are disproportionately impacting fragile and conflict-affected settings (FCS). Climate shocks can exacerbate security risks in FCS, conflict and instability compromise a region’s ability to adapt to climate change, leaving its population ever more vulnerable to future climate shocks.
This creates a risk of mutually reinforcing crises spiraling out of control.
By the same token, climate adaptation—measures to increase resilience to climate change—can reduce conflict risks and possibly contribute to lasting peace. This is why international meetings, such as last year’s COP28 climate summit (November 30-December 12 2023) and the (February 27-29 ) World Bank Fragility Forum, have emphasized the need for increased 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 factors, the volatility of the context, security risks to people associated with the work and high costs. Various approaches have been suggested to address some of these issues and to make adaptation projects in FCS more effective—not only in terms of building climate resilience but also in addressing conflict risk.
A review of policy and strategic documents published by five donors that are actively supporting climate adaptation in FCS—the African Development Bank (AfDB), the Global Environmental Facility (GEF), the World Bank, and the Dutch and Danish foreign ministries—suggests that such approaches are starting 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 has been argued that integrated assessments covering both climate and conflict dimensions are crucial to designing climate adaptation measures that do not increase conflict risk and ideally help create conditions for lasting peace.
While each of the five donors acknowledges the links between climate change and security at the policy level, only some conduct integrated assessments. For example, a few of the World Bank’s climate change country risk profiles delve into the intersection with security concerns.
Among others the profiles for Ethiopia and Yemen highlight the risk of projected climatic change and extreme weather events worsening tensions around natural resources, food insecurity and migration.
Yet even in these country profiles, the analysis of climate–security links seems somewhat ad hoc; none of the five donors appears to use a systematic method for assessing these links and how adaptation can influence them.
Peace-positive ambitions and activities
A ‘peace-positive’ approach to climate adaptation entails, for example, defining peace-related objectives and indicators of success for an adaptation project. The approach could also include, for example, activities aimed at fostering dialogue, ensuring the equitable distribution of resources and building state capacity to alleviate local tensions.
Denmark’s programme for the fragile border areas of Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger combines climate adaptation with facilitating community dialogue and mediation over resource access. In a 2018 report, the GEF’s Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel (STAP) urged the GEF to take opportunities ‘to contribute actively to conflict prevention, not only by mitigating the vulnerabilities affecting particular stakeholder groups but also by strengthening institutions of environmental cooperation and equitable resource governance’.
However, it is unclear whether this advice has been followed. Otherwise, there was little sign of peace-positive activities on the part of any of the five donors. Similarly, there were no examples of climate adaptation projects having specific indicators for impacts on peace.
It is important to acknowledge that peace-positive efforts may exceed the mandates and capacities of many climate adaptation actors.
Collaboration and coordination with other actors
The 2016 World Humanitarian Summit underlined the fact that collaboration and coordination between humanitarian, development and peacebuilding (HDP) actors is necessary to better address issues linked to climate change and conflict, 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 operating there.
Calls for such cooperation and collaboration have become commonplace among international actors in the HDP fields. Yet it is rarely seen in practice: HDP and climate adaptation projects still occur in isolation. Challenges to collaboration and cooperation include the varying engagement timelines and methodologies of different actors.
There are positive signs, however. For example, the African Development Bank’s Strategy for Addressing Fragility and Building Resilience in Africa (2022–2026) emphasizes the value of collaboration ‘across many actors’, playing to each one’s comparative advantages in the ‘multidimensional challenge’ of tackling fragility.
Some of the AfDB’s recent country strategies indicate that it has taken steps to map the other development partners operating in the country, suggesting a will to put this principle into practice.
Participatory and inclusive approaches
Another widely accepted principle is that projects are more likely to succeed with the participation of key stakeholders and the inclusion of different groups affected by the project—because, among other things, this makes the project more likely to respond to local needs and realities, which in turn builds a stronger sense of local ownership.
In FCS, it is even more important to understand how different groups may benefit or lose out from a project and how interventions may create or deepen local tensions. Inclusive, participatory approaches are therefore essential to ensure conflict sensitivity and peace-positive outcomes.
The Netherlands’ Global Climate Strategy advocates for a people-centred approach, setting equity and inclusion as guiding principles. ‘Locally led adaption’ and ‘meaningful participation’ are prioritized in order to better understand local needs and benefit from the knowledge and experiences of local people, especially vulnerable groups.
Similarly, the AfDB’s policies promote intensified engagement with civil society. An example of this in practice is seen in a project on sustainable water management in the Eastern Nile region, which integrated community-based feedback and validation processes that provided insight into local perceptions of the project.
Flexibility and adaptability
Various past climate adaptation projects have had to be abandoned or relocated when conflict has broken out. This has been blamed in part on inflexibility in the projects’ designs: being only suitable for a fixed set of pre-conflict circumstances.
As volatility is a characteristic of FCS, flexible approaches that allow timelines, budgets and activities to be adapted in response to changing contexts allow projects to be more effective and to stay relevant.
The Netherlands mentions ‘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 modified in response to changes in the situation on the ground without jeopardizing the entire programme.
The World Bank reports that while its current guidance offers a ‘range of operational flexibilities’, project teams have not always used them. It acknowledges that ‘efforts are needed to ensure that teams are aware and feel empowered to draw on flexibilities as needed so that practice aligns with policy’.
Looking ahead
Major donors appear to be aware of key 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 whether, this awareness is being translated into practice. There is an urgent need to share insights and experiences on how this can be done effectively.
The findings build on a document analysis conducted by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) for the Global Center on Adaptation’s Water and Urban programme.
Ann-Sophie Böhle is a Research Assistant in the SIPRI Climate Change and Risk Programme.
