Ahead of COP28, this joint paper from the Centre on Armed Groups and ODI examines the failure the address climate adaptation in conflict areas and areas beyond state control. The current climate adaptation paradigm focuses overwhelmingly on states, neglecting conflict areas, which are among the worst impacted by climate change and the least prepared to adapt. The paper explores what is driving the conflict climate gap and examines the opportunities and challenges for climate adaptation in conflict affected and non-state-controlled areas. It concludes by outlining a multi-pronged approach to developing ways of working on climate adaptation in these settings.
Bridging the gap
The conflict-climate gap results from a lack of appropriate funding and programming modalities for climate adaptation in conflict zones and areas beyond state control. While there is increasingly rhetorical and policy attention to the need for climate adaptation programming in conflict areas, this has not (yet) been matched by meaningful change. Part of the problem is that we know little about what kind of climate programming will be feasible and effective in these settings. The report provides a rapid overview of what the literature tells us, as well as the current gaps in knowledge.
Climate adaptation in conflict areas and areas beyond state control: Engaging with communities and civil society
Bridging the gap means going beyond national governments, and directly engaging with conflict affected communities and non-state armed groups. Customary leaders (such as elders), civil society and other local leaders can serve as essential conduits, making the often-daunting task of working in these areas more feasible. These actors can play an important role is ensuring adaptation measures have community support and that they are accepted by all. They may also act as intermediaries with armed groups, providing a buffer for those implementing climate programmes. There are, however, various challenges and risks, which must be carefully considered on a case-by-case basis. But there are a plethora of models and approaches from other sectors that can be adapted and tested.
Engaging with non-state armed groups
Armed groups constitute an expansive category of diverse actors with different interests, capacities, and levels of internal and external control. But we know from humanitarian and peacebuilding work that engaging with armed actors and de facto authorities is often a prerequisite to working in conflict areas. There is strong reason to believe that, with certain armed groups, doing so can yield progress on climate adaptation. It may also support peacebuilding and human rights advocacy efforts. Again, there is no one size fits all approach; risks and appropriate forms of engagement vary by context.
Ways forward
The report outlines five pathways forward:
- Normative pathways, aimed at expanding international norms and legal frameworks to address the specificities of conflict
- Policy pathways that build on progress to date to ensure strategies and frameworks address conflict sensitivity and ways of working in these areas
- Funding pathways, including increasing bilateral and other forms of aid tailored to conflict settings
- Programmatic pathways focused on learning across sectors, and working with local partners and communities
- Research pathways to inform policy and practice, including on understanding armed group attitudes, and evaluating adaptation modalities and approaches
This is the executive summary, to read the full research paper, click on the link here.
Authored by Ashley Jackson, Florian Weigand, Leigh Mayhew & Pascal Bongard from the Centre on Armed Groups.