This online discussion draws directly from the theme and substance of the UNGA75 high-level panel, opening up the conversation to other affected regions, with a view to documenting nexus experiences as they may inform efforts to address climate-related security risks and the synthesis report takes this theme as its headline.
|
For the main challenges for climate security and peacebuilding in affected regions, from the perspective of the HDP nexus, do responses effectively address environmental and climate change factors? Are they integrated into a sector/cluster, or led by an agency/organization? When thinking about financing, donors could adapt to UN-led humanitarian responses that have gone 5+ years in a context beyond basic needs and resilience - but is that the reality in a one/two year cycle?
Thank you Michael Moroz for your inputs and sharing these very relevant concerns. I agree on the importance of taking into account both short-term and long-term implications and tailor reponses to context specific realities. Would you have an example of a successful intervention on the ground which you could share (Q3)?
Diane Sheinberg and Catherine Wong what would you consider the main challenges (Q1) and would you have any examples of a successful intervention (Q3)?
Berith Karasch, conflict analysis and understanding conflict dynamics, the lay of the land etc. is really important. This doesn't automatically lead us to solutions, particularly in complex contexts, so I would say we need to assess the problem on the one hand but the solutions on the other, and what is actually working.
From the panel last week, the role of local peacebuilding actors was highlighted and how we can better connect with those actors already on the ground.
Michael, thank you for these reflections. In my view, we (as a global community) are at the very early stages of integrating environment and climate into interventions, with one of the major challenges being lack of contextual understanding of environmental and climate dynamics - let alone the interplay between these and insecurity - and how they affect populations. An example I often return to is the way humanitarian agencies in most conflict and disaster contexts do not adequately address the impact of increased population density on the natural environment in a way that is conflict sensitive, with the result that you often see high levels of deforestation in surrounding areas and, frequently, significant IDP/ refugee and host community tensions around this. This area offers so many opportunities for humanitarian, development, and peacebuilding actors to come together in a way that reflects environment and climate impacts, humanitarian needs, conflict dynamics, and opportunities around sustainable livelihoods and income generation.
Berith Deborah Karasch - In terms of concrete positive examples, I would like to mention WFP’s forecast-based financing programmes, which use crisis alerts and forecasts to help people prepare for shocks before a disaster materializes. For example, in late 2019, two weeks before typhoon Kammuri (or locally Tisoy), knowing the region was entering its peak flood season, WFP Philippines dispatched cash to 1,000 vulnerable households. This allowed them to buy food and other necessities; get their houses ready before the storm, and move on with their lives much quicker after the storm. Similarly, in Bangladesh, WFP reached a total of 145,000 people with cash as early as 4 days before they were affected by the peak of the flooding events in July 2020. Being pre-defined and coordinated with governments, the impact of this kind of forecast-based financing programmes can be far-reaching as they help to (i) protect people and assets; (ii) mitigate losses and damages; (iii) reduce the number of people that require humanitarian assistance once a hazard materializes; and can even (iv) strengthen the social compact by strengthening national systems that link citizens to the state.
Read more on how cash assistance based on forecasts is helping communities in the Philippines to prepare for shocks and recover more quickly: https://insight.wfp.org/before-the-storm-bc8302bc79fc
Johanna Green I think the prevention-side of climate security is increasingly critical to addressing climate security risks More must be done to bring early warning mechanisms and risk analysis and assessments to vulnerable areas and populations, and from WFP's experience evidence is demonstrating this. But I am curious what is being done in humanitarian responses on the mitigation side - particularly in protracted crisis contexts. Certainly mitigation of losses and damage with cash is key, but would there be solutions to reduce flooding through resilience/development programming, or strategic partnerships across hum/dev/peace nexus to mitigate environmental damage and support refugees and host communities alike in addressing these risks while the money is there? I wonder if the financing is flexible enough to accomodate this medium-term cycle and allow these partnerships to develop?
Berith Deborah Karasch
In terms of additional challenges, I also think of the division of labor and sequencing of interventions and how can we reconcile short-term, medium-term and long-term needs of affected populations, while grounding all interventions on a solid conflict analysis and integrating a do no harm approach. I am also thinking about the most vulnerable populations living in remote areas, such as cross-border areas where they face multiple vulnerabilities with limited services and support from the state. For example in the Sahel, the Peacebuilding Fund is piloting innovative approaches with a strong nexus approach. The Central Sahel area, and in particular the Liptako Gourma region, which borders Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger, is affected by a complex crisis involving growing competition over dwindling resources; climatic variability; demographic pressure; high levels of poverty; disaffection and a lack of livelihood opportunities; communal tensions; the absence of state institutions and basic services; and violence related to organized crime and Non-State Armed Groups. In this area, the Peacebuilding Fund is empowering women to contribute to
local and cross-border conflict prevention efforts by enhancing their
participation and leadership in local decision-making with a focus on the
management of natural resources. With PBF resources, local population diversify
livelihood opportunities including land ownership and the organization of
women’s led cooperatives to reduce the impact of climate change and
related tensions on local communities across the border and support
inclusive mechanisms to manage natural resources. The Peacebuilding Fund also tackles conflict drivers between farmers and herders linked to transhumance in the conflict-affected Liptako-Gourma region between Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger. The project aims at establishing a tracking system for the movement of transhumant herders to better prepare and prevent possible conflicts with the sedentary communities, establish/strengthen local dialogue mechanisms involving these communities and local authorities in view to facilitate peaceful cross-border transhumance and prevent possible transhumance conflicts that could possibly be exploited by armed groups. Such approach aims to address in a coordinated fashion the common threat represented by the escalation of inter and intra-community conflicts in the region , including those linked to violent extremism.
Thank you Michael Moroz - you’ve touched upon a critical point here, namely how important it is to have access to flexible, predictable and multi-year funding to maximise the impact of our interventions in the right place, at the right time. And yet, I believe most agencies/organisations are familiar with the challenge of barely having access to such funding even in the places where people are confronted with the most complex patterns of risk (for example, only 5 percent of WFP’s total contribution revenue was fully flexible in 2019). On the positive side, however, with WFP, UNDP, UNICEF, IOM and UNFPA adhering to the OECD-DAC Recommendation on the HDP nexus, there seems to be an important opportunity and momentum building up to have a closer and more regular dialogue between the bilateral and multilateral system to facilitate more coherent, complementary and effective approaches in fragile contexts – not only on the financing side, but also when it comes to programming and coordination.
Also, building on Diane Sheinberg 's contribution (thank you Diane for your detailed examples!) – I would highlight the potential of the Peacebuilding Fund as a vehicle to encourage and forge innovative partnerships across the HDP nexus as well as programme design based on common analysis and joint/co-designed interventions with peace outcomes.
Okay Deborah I have not yet seen somewhere this has worked, but it doesn't mean there ain't solution. In the Horn of Africa this process of integration has somehow worked for a short term. But there is no positive peace that has prevailed why?
This is because of the actors involved they collaborate and confront depending on their interests.
The issue of the government vs the actors is another intricate / the grass roots communities and the organization
There is also top-down approach rather than horizontal / inclusive regardless of tribe, race, borders,
There's no culture background traditions held onto communities that contradict the government policies and to deconstruct that may take time especially if government choose to use the hard power.
Thank you Stella for raising these points about actor interest and the need to take inclusive approaches. I would be interested to hear about the integration processes - could you provide more details? And any ideas about what could be done differently to ensure they are sustained?
It is great to see everyone in. this discussion. I am writing to share a few reflections from GPPAC, regarding Triple Nexus.
The Triple Nexus for us is built on the idea of sharing resources to enhance national and local capacities of those best positioned to engage across peace, development and humanitarian work. The critical element of integrated action on the peace-development-humanitarian nexus is complementarity and non-repetition. This entails rigorous mapping out existing work and developing coordinated approaches between various stakeholders to ensure that action on various areas of work contributes to common strategic objectives.
I am happy to share more and allow my colleagues to share perspectives from different parts of the GPPAC network.
Another element I wanted to highlight is the integration of gender analysis. We believe that all UN agendas across the peace-development-humanitarian nexus should integrate gender analysis within the framework and also at the implementation stage. Harmful gender norms, power relations, displacement, loss of livelihoods, and securitisation disproportionately affect people in communities, making them more susceptible to violence. This consequently leads to a lack of diverse people's visibility and engagement in decision making across the peace-development-humanitarian nexus. Maintaining a gender-sensitive approach in the operationalisation of the nexus is critical not only because it addresses gendered root causes of conflict, but also because it encourages a people-centred approach based on human security and human rights.
You can read more about our work on the integration of gender across the Triple Nexus at: https://gppac.net/resources/understanding-inclusive-peace-development-h…
It would be great to hear participants' reflections on how they work to ingrate gender across the Triple Nexus.
Thank you very much for these thoughts Marina. I completely agree with you about the importance of enhancing national and local capacities (and also recognising these actors have a lot to teach people operating in international/ global spaces!) and on integrating gender analysis. I would be very interested in hearing more your experiences (and those of your colleagues) as to what this looks like practically.
Dear Marina, like Chitra, I appreciate your point about the need for complementarity. Avoiding duplication of efforts and fulfilling identified needs requires information-sharing through reliable rather than just ad hoc channels. In GPPAC's work on this, did you find good examples of climate-related innovations across agencies and organizations that allowed for such exchanges, whether in the risk assessment, planning, or execution states of responses?
Hello! Rebecca Richards and I (both representing WFP) are happy to join this interesting discussion and as this week’s moderators will facilitate your exchange and help structure the discussion until 27 October. Thank you Berith for your moderation last week! The discussion has already captured many important conceptual insights – including integration of conflict analysis, climate and gender into interventions – and we hope more will follow.
This week we would also strongly encourage participants to include concrete examples (of challenges, impacts, solutions, and ways forward) grounded in country and organisational context where possible.
A quick reminder of our guiding questions:
1. What are the main challenges for climate security and peacebuilding in affected regions, from the perspective of the HDP nexus?
2. How is climate-security impacting your work and programmes across the HDP nexus? Who are the main actors?
3. What solutions are working on the ground? How are they working and why are they successful?
4. What else needs to be done and how can we raise the bar?
We are moving away from cultural embedded conflict to resource conflict. In as much as government/ I/NGOare intervening this a cyclic conflict because a) The commuties are scrumbling for the limited resources. Which They do not have other alternatives, the culture also is in the picture although it's not a nessecity.
The prorefilation of NGOs that are not conversant with the context on ground. They may appear to be enemies as well as saviour to some communities.remember ones person may be another persons sin.
These interventions are community centred approach. And some are short term like giving them food and may basic needs with out expectations of the future. Instead of training them on how to get a resource and other alternatives that support the climate security and provide for them in long run. Don't assume the there ain't ultruistic nature of the organizations and some state actors that benefit in the sustaining the conflict. For instance let's look at kenya the conflict between the masaai and pilot. There is no development is taking place in the area.cschools have been turned into cattle bans. Children's have left school and proliferation of arms among the two communities. The leaders in the area cannot intervene because they profit from cattle rustling and export the meat to a foreign countries.
The government use of hard power to solve the issue just created a negative peace.some of the community do not even recognize government , to them the view the government as a another enemy.
Due to desertification their animals die and as a result they must keep on looking for more cattles since having a cow in their culture is a source of wealth and hence this forces them to raid in the neighborhood leading to conflict. The process is taking place also in the HOrn of Africa between three states with different tribes.
Thank you Stella for your contribution. I think your description gives a good example of just how complex any given context can be with often multiple conflict drivers (including climate related) interacting at various levels. This highlights again how important it is to have a robust understanding of the context and conflict dynamics to ensure – as a bare minimum – that we do no harm.
On that note, it would be interesting to hear from you and other participants what kind of approaches/tools/partnerships you think are needed to ensure that our usual programming does not inadvertently get caught up in, and contribute to, conflict.
I saw this great report today and thought worth sharing with this group as it crosses a number of the relevant themes: https://www.climate-diplomacy.org/publications/spreading-disease-spread…
Thanks @James Blake for sharing this insightful piece by @Beatrice Mosello and colleagues.
The COVID pandemic has allowed us to engage with some actors on climate-related security risks who might have previously been less receptive to such a discussion.
Catherine Wong Why do you think the pandemic has increased receptiveness around climate security risks?
It's interesting Chitra, those we reached out to, pointed that the systemic and still unfolding impacts of COVID somehow brought home more clearly the message of the need to get out of silos (and not think or just climate or conflict, etc.) and to think holistically.
Catherine Wong One area where I perceive increased receptivity here in Latin America is the discussion of how deforestation can contribute towards more pandemics, as people come into closer contact with wild animals. It's a point being raised by researchers and civil society entities working to curb environmental destruction, including illegal land invasions, forest fires and illegal wood extraction in the Amazon.
It's my pleasure to take over moderation for the coming week. Thank you all for your insightful and thought provoking comments so far. I'm looking forward to the discussions in the days ahead.
A reminder of our guiding questions:
1. What are the main challenges for climate security and peacebuilding in affected regions, from the perspective of the HDP nexus?
2. How is climate-security impacting your work and programmes across the HDP nexus? Who are the main actors?
3. What solutions are working on the ground? How are they working and why are they successful?
4. What else needs to be done and how can we raise the bar?
It would be particularly good to hear examples of solutions, how they are working and lessons we can draw from them.
What solutions are working on the ground? How are they working and why are they successful? What else needs to be done and how can we raise the bar together?
Nature-based solutions (NbS) can not only address 1/3 of the mitigation climate targets, but they can also provide powerful climate adaptation opportunities. While spatial data is key to robust decision-making around nature, many countries have limited access to it. Thus, their range of action on NbS is likewise restricted. At the Global Programme Nature for Development, we are working on spatial data. We concentrate on generating, collecting, and visualizing geospatial information and maps around nature. We contribute at closing the gap between scientific data, policy and action.
A considerable number of countries already recognize climate change as a national security issue. This is evident in their NDCs. Besides, they have set adaptation and NbS commitments in their NDCs and their National Adaptation Plans. By combining our spacial data with future climate scenarios (regional downscaling), we could offer a radiography of the best places where Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EbA) actions can be conducted, and what to do. EbA can significantly contribute to reduce climate risk on the ground, and generate multiple benefits that certainly contribute to decreasing security risks (i.e.water issues).
For instance, the Programme is producing policy briefs with spatial data to inform countries on their NbS potential to achieve NDC commitments. The link with the security issue and EbA is just a step away.
Thank you very much for sharing this work. Do you have any examples of how this has been taken forward in particular contexts that you can share with us?
Chitra Nagarajan Hi Chitra, our first pilot was Costa Rica, but we are also working in Peru, Uganda, Colombia and Kazakhstan. In Costa Rica, together with the Ministry of Environment, other Ministries, and 60 scientist and public policy experts, we have developed a spatial data-based methodology to address sectorial needs through the protection and restoration of ecosystems. Here the concept note that we developed: https://simocute.go.cr/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Mapping-Nature-for-Pe…
The link with Ecosystem-based Adaptation is implied but needs to be highlighted. With my first comment, I wanted to point out at the great potential of all this to address climate security. With some tweaks, it can be an amazing example.
Some more material on this initiative:
- Former Costa Rican Minister, and current GEF´s CEO, led the development of the pilot in Costa Rica. In this blog, he explains the importance of the initiative: https://www.thegef.org/blog/mapping-nature-create-global-biodiversity-f…
- The initiative just recently receive the Earth Observation for the Sustainable Development Goals Award: http://www.earthobservations.org/geo_blog_obs.php?id=472
Finally, this is how a map of opportunities for nature-based solutions looks like:
Dear colleagues,
This week Luca Bucken, from the Elman Peace Center, and I will be moderating and building on Chitra Nagarajan excellent efforts this past week.
To support you in navigating through the treads and moving the conversation forward, here are some of the key take-away points from the last seven days:
1. At the level of risk assessment, there is clearly a need for more robust understanding of context and conflict dynamics, with respect to how they interact with climate.
2. One key hurdle in this respect has to do with availability of data. Many actors lack adequate access to spatial data, which can be analyzed so as to address sectoral needs, among others.
3. At the level of frameworks, it was noted that few countries recognize climate as an issue related to security, as reflected in many NDCs, which may inhibit the formulation of scaled-up responses.
4. With respect to coordination, there is a need to avoid duplication of efforts and to maximize complementarity through reliable channels for information exchange, improved division of labor, and sequencing of interventions, capturing needs across different time frames. Certain Peacebuilding Fund initiatives already in place attempt to address these cooridnation issues.
5. Great importance is placed on flexible, predictable and reliable funding to maximize impact of intervention; at the same time, opportunities may arise for more dialogue on financing between the bilateral and multilateral levels on financing, as well as programming and coordination.
6. At the ground level, a community-centered approach can be effective but there capacity-building is needed to deal with longer-term climate-related issues rather than focusing narrowly on short-term responses.
7. Nature-based solutions can provide powerful climate adaptation opportunities.
Finally, one more quick reminder of our guiding questions. We encourage you to include specific examples whenever possible.
Looking forward!
One the main challenges in the perspective of HDP nexus is mainstreaming climate security into national/economic development/climate change planning, which often includes humanitarian planning in these countries. Certainly, its "newness" works against it, but from the recent UNDP (with UNFCCC) paper on NDCs, conflict-affected countries are also some of the most vulnerable to climate, and identify conflict and insecurity as a hinderance to their achieving NDCs and other national plans. The ongoing climate change happening now is preventing further action on reducing it. Jordan particularly references their commitment to humanitarian aid and hosting the displaced as a major drain on resources that are prioritized over climate action. It seems that aligning humanitarian response with climate adaptation plans, national economic development plans and (where they exist) post-conflict recovery plans could be a "nexus" way of tackling conflict prevention, climate change adaption/mitigation, and supporting national governments on achieving their climate and development goals.
Good afternoon from Nairobi and excited to co-moderate this final week of consultations with Adriana Abdenur!
Thank you for the structured overview, Adriana -- we have covered a lot of ground in this group already and I hope that we can still collect a few more insights, particularly on the question of Q2 "how climate-security impacts your HDP nexus work" and "identification of key actors", as well as Q3 "solutions that work" (on that note, I really enjoyed reading about Enrique Carlos Paniagua 's work in Costa Rica -- if you missed it, I recommend to scroll up and take a look).
Michael Moroz, many thanks for sharing the NDC review and I agree that post-conflict recovery plans but also wider strategies in conflict-affected countries could open opportunities for a nexus approach. One thing that we at Elman Peace are worried about in this context is that the "newness" of the of the HDP-climate nexus may repeat old mistakes by failing to be inclusive and sufficiently localised. In the anniversary year of WPS and YPS and on the heels of the youth-led Fridays for Future movement, the renewed interest in the HDP-climate nexus should be an opportunity to close the inclusion gap that each of the HDP-climate pillars individually recognised -- but it feels we are still playing catch up when it comes to climate-related security risks.
Some interesting work has been done on Youth and climate-related security risks as well as by Karolina Eklöw 's colleagues in the WPS context. But when I look at our Elman Peace work context in the Horn of Africa (very much a focus of global HDP-climate interest), I see that discourse, research, and early-stage programming focus on governmental, inter-governmental, UN, and (sometimes) INGO actors. The discourse, capacities, AND funds, once again do not reach local women peacebuilders, mayors or regional governors, or environmental frontline defenders. So within the the context of our guidance questions, I would be beyond excited to hear from participants's ideas, expertise, and concrete examples on localising HDP-climate programming and highlighting solutions that work in cooperation contexts that promote inclusion and/or involve local actors.
Very sorry for this long message! Since, in some parts of the world, we are approaching the weekend I will not share an additional report but encourage you to watch the brilliant Hindou Oumarou Ibrahim speaking about her project of linking indigenous knowledge with science in the Lake Chad region to inform conservation and resource management while promoting security:
Good morning!
A couple of weeks ago, Chitra Nagarajan and Johanna Green mentioned the role of disasters in the HDP nexus. This past week, Australian policymakers have intensified debates about how to prepare for and mitigate the risks of major disasters, including the widespread forest fires seen this past year.
One recent report has mentioned the growing possibility of simultaneous and/or superimposed disasters--a type of scenario that other countries have also experienced. There is also discussion of how these acute crises demand a rethinking of the role of different actors, including Armed Forces. (For background on the Australian debates, see this recent article: https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/national-aerial-firefighting-fl…)
In addition, the coincidence of disasters and open conflict is likely to increase.
All of this constitutes not only a direct threat to human life, but also to food, water and energy security, often across international borders.
Within the context of our broader discussion of the HDO nexus, how can DRR responses be designed so as to better incorporate climate change and associated security risks?
Hi everyone and thank you, Adriana! Indeed, I remember a conversation with staff from the US Pentagon about the growing concerns that the US military is now responding to extreme weather events every two weeks. They reflected how this would impact communal security, in case of overwhelmed capacities of overlapping disasters coinciding with riots such as seen in the Katrina hurricane aftermath; however, what I find much more relevant of this and the Australian perspective that Adriana shared, is that the intersectional nature of the HDP-climate nexus clearly should drive policy investments in all countries, including G20.
There are some interesting readings that Adriana Abdenur and I wanted to share with you that reflect in further detail also on the DRR and HDP-climate interactions: "Environmental Security Risks: How to Plan for Disasters in the Face of Uncertainty" is one of them and the colleagues from Adelphi previously published a very comprehensive assessment on "Addressing climate and fragility risks in the Lake Chad region". Perhaps, Chitra Nagarajan who co-authored the report could share with us some key insights on how she sees developments in the region and new responses since the publication of the report?
Tomorrow is the last day of these e-consultations, so I want to open the floor to everyone also at this point to freely share what you feel might still be missing from the conversation and also perspectives on what important next steps are?
I almost forgot: Recalling exchanges shared by Marina Kumskova , Chitra Nagarajan , and @Johanna Green, I want to highlight that my co-moderator Adriana Abdenur is speaking today at a very interesting event "Climate and Security: An Emerging Context in a New Era for Women, Peace and Security", co-hosted by UNEP, UN Women, UNDPPA, UNDP, and cosponsored by Canada, the current Chair of the Group of Friends on WPS, as well as Germany and Nauru, the Co-Chairs of the Group of Friends on Climate and Security, You can register here.
¡Saludos a todos! Me da gusto tener la oportunidad de participar en el foro y quiero agradecer a Martín Cadena, UNDP, por la invitación.
De este tema en particular, veo con agrado una cada vez mayor -pero aún insuficiente- atención de los estudiosos de las ciencias sociales y políticas, que por fin acompañan a estudiosos de otras materias que "tradicionalmente" analizaban el tema, para encontrarle una solución multidisciplinaria. Y debo añadir que ya no me siento tan solo, pues desde mi campo, las Relaciones Internacionales, aún somos menos personas llamando la atención sobre el tema.
Sería muy importante considerar también una relación causal (no casual, sino causal) para el estudio del tema abordar casos como el centroamericano. Me refiero en específico al caso de las "caravanas migrantes" (como los medios les han llamado) provenientes del Triángulo Norte de Centroamérica (Honduras, El Salvador y Guatemala) compuestas por familias enteras (incluyendo mujeres embarazadas y bebés) que se ven obligadas a emigrar de la zona, sí por cuestiones de inseguridad (que es el aspecto mediáticamente más difundido) pero también por la sequía, cada vez más dura, del "Corredor Seco Centroamericano", que ha devastado la producción agrícola y, por ende, las fuentes de ingreso económico.
¿Cuál ha sido el resultado y la respuesta institucionalizada tanto de México como de los Estados Unidos? Únicamente la administración del aspecto regulatorio de la migración: quién sí puede y bajo qué condiciones atravesar el territorio mexicano; quién si puede y bajo qué condiciones ingresar a los Estados Unidos, etc. Los resultados todos ustedes los conocen y no necesito profundizar. Esto evidentemente aborda exclusivamente los síntomas, pero no las causas y por ello hablo de la relación causal: las evidencias empíricas apuntan al cambio climático como el responsable de la sequía en la zona, en la lógica de la gran vulnerabilidad de Mesoamérica (que es el área geográfica que parte de la mitad sur de México y Centroamérica) al cambio climático.
¿Qué debería hacerse? Fomentar un esfuerzo multinacional (Estados Unidos, México, Centroamérica, quizás Unión Europea, etc.) con el acompañamiento de las agencias multilaterales (UN, UNDP, UN Environment, WB, GCF, etc.) y organizaciones no gubernamentales (WRI, WWF, etc.), con el objetivo de proveer los estímulos económicos, financieros, comerciales y sociales para:
1. Atender las necesidades de los migrantes (corto plazo)
2. Conformar un fondo financiero para detonar el desarrollo económico en la zona (mediado plazo) con las mejores prácticas de producción agrícola sostenible, fomento al empleo, educación, etc.
3. Contrarrestar las causas del cambio climático (largo plazo)
De esta manera, se puede romper el círculo vicioso que hoy tiene a miles de personas en la necesidad de migrar.
Con este ejemplo, mi intención es destacar la necesidad de incluir en la discusión general el estudio de estos factores.
Me encantaría conocer sus opiniones.
[EN ESPAÑOL] Gracias, Mario. De hecho, todavía hay grandes lagunas por llenar en las investigaciones, y el mundo académico y de los "think tanks" a menudo queda limitado por las divisiones disciplinarias--en paralelo a los "silos" de las Naciones Unidas.
A pesar de la discusión de la importancia de la interdisciplinariedad, existen muchos incentivos para que los investigadores no crucen fronteras disciplinarias, mismo cuando los temas son complejos, como los cambios climáticos. Pero eso parece estar cambiando, mismo que lentamente.
En cuanto a la migración climática, Ud. ha planteado puntos excelentes. ¿Qué políticas también se pueden implementar dirigidas a las comunidades que reciben a los migrantes, a fin de mejorar el proceso de integración?
***
[IN ENGLISH] Thanks Mario. Indeed, there are still large research gaps to fill, and academia and think tanks often suffer from disciplinary divisions - paralleling the "silos" of the United Nations.
Despite discussions of the importance of interdisciplinarity, there are many incentives for researchers not to cross borders, even when the issues are complex, such as climate change. But that seems to be changing, even if slowly.
As for climate migration, those are excellent points. What policies can also be implemented targeting communities that receive those migrants, in order to improve the integration process?
Gracias, Adriana.
Coincido con tu punto de vista. De hecho, el programa del cual soy fellow, LEAD (Leadership on Environment and Development, https://www.lead.org/) incentiva la multidisciplinareidad y el análisis holístico, pues sabemos que un ecólogo, un sociólogo, un economista, un internacionalista (como yo), un biólogo o un abogado, etc. por sí mismo no podrá tener una visión completa de un fenómeno en específico, pero si los juntas a todos ellos, podrás tener un análisis holístico.
Con respecto a tu pregunta en específico, en el caso que yo conozco de las migraciones de centroamericanos hacia México y hacia los Estados Unidos, el problema es la velocidad y la cantidad de personas que llegan en un tiempo muy corto, por lo que la respuesta institucional es rebasada, lo mismo en México que en Estados Unidos. Esto evidentemente ha provocado enormes problemas sociales, tanto entre los migrantes como entre la población receptora. Por ello, yo destaco que es importante que en el corto plazo se puedan canalizar recursos financieros extraordinarios al mismo tiempo que se comienzan a diseñar las políticas de mediano y de largo plazos que menciono. De otra manera, no se podrá romper el círculo vicioso.
Pero si tuviera que recomendar un par de políticas puntuales para implementarse de inmediato, yo elegiría iniciar mecanismos de creación de empleos, tanto para los migrantes como para la población local, de tal manera que no sean mutuamente competitivos, además de una regularización legal que permita a los migrantes tener seguridad jurídica y fiscal en el país receptor. Todo ello, por supuesto, acompañado de seguridad social, médica, educativa para los hijos, etc. Esto, claro está, resuelve el problema de corto plazo. Habrá también que comenzar a trabajar en el mediano y largo plazos para romper el círculo vicioso.
Saludos
As we are closing the discussion, I just wanted to share a few quick to build on the points brought up by all experts in this chat.
We really need to look at the complexities that HDP nexus poses from a political standpoint. There seems to be a debate around whether or not it exists and how it is supposed to cooperate. While integrating gender and climate sensitive analysis is an important analysis that is to be made and further advanced, we need to look carefully at what the HDP nexus entails and how this is understood in different contexts to enable broader support for the integration of the gender or climate-sensitive lens.
Next, we need to really build on the 2020 Peacebuilding Architecture Review about the importance of the regional arrangements in operationalizing effective climate response. There is barely a country anywhere that is solely affected by impacts of climate change. How can the regional arrangements be better supported to advance climate-sensitive analysis? The situation in the Pacific offers certainly a very good practice of the Pacific Island’s Forum engagement across the Triple Nexus and underpinned by the Boe Declaration: https://gppac.net/resources/understanding-inclusive-peace-development-humanitarian-nexus-gender-climate-and This is something that we can operationalize in other regions. Strengthened regional peacebuilding capacities and coordination of a joint response will be a key to success.
Lastly, and perhaps relevant to all points of the conversation. Why are we focusing on mitigation? Peacebuilding strategies in many parts of the world (from peace education to community councils) offer a platform to advance an actual prevention of climate change, by explaining the complexities, training to utilize more eco-friendly resources, addressing the issue of deforestation as a result of conflicts. We are talking the way to little with local communities, thinking that this is beyond their area of expertise; however, this can also be about changing the mindset and not expect from local civil society to hit the language that fits the frameworks and policies but also mae frameworks and policies more reflective of language and expertise of local communities.
Welcome to the e-discussion on "Addressing climate-related security risks - a perspective from the HDP nexus". I am delighted to be your moderator until 20 October and in that function will help structure the discussion, engage in the exchange and provide a brief summary highlighting key points discussed by the end of this first of 4 weeks of e-consultation.
This online room draws directly from the theme and substance of the UNGA75 high-level panel, opening up the conversation to other affected regions, with a view to documenting nexus experiences as they may inform efforts to address climate-related security risks.
Please use the 4 guiding questions above as the starting point for your inputs. We are very much looking forward to a constructive and focused exchange.
Berith