This e-discussion draws on UNDP’s work under the CSM and will input to an ongoing study which examines the contribution of climate finance to sustaining peace. The study addresses risks, opportunities and co-benefits of climate finance in conflict-affected and fragile states for peace and stability. At the end of the four week online scoping process, a multi-stakeholder consultation will be held on Zoom; the SparkBlue e-discussions serve to help identify participants for this consultation and collect inputs for the study.
 

  1. How can climate finance contribute to sustaining peace?
     
  2. What are good practices on access to and implementation of climate finance in conflict-affected and fragile states? How strong are the peacebuilding outcomes of such projects?
     
  3. What are the particular bottlenecks to accessing climate financing streams in conflict-affected and fragile states? How can we avoid risks to illicit economies and political settlements?
     
  4. Are you aware of good climate adaptation projects that have a secondary peacebuilding outcomes? Or peacebuilding projects which strengthen adaptive capacity? How have they avoided maladaptation and/or malmitigation?

Comments (8)

Catherine Wong Moderator

From the high level panel this morning, the role of finance was mentioned by a few of panelists.

AED Valerie Guarnieri shared some interesting figures from a 2019 OECD/INCAF report which I think are quite insightful and useful for framing/scene setting:

- 37 of the 58 fragile contexts had less than 10% of their ODA allocated to climate adaptation objectives in 2016 and 2017

- 45 of the 58 fragile contexts had less than 10% of their ODA allocated to climate mitigation objectives.

- Using the 2016/2017 average, ODA with climate objectives in fragile contexts is split almost equally between mitigation and adaptation, with USD 5.3 billion per year, on average, for adaptation and USD 5.2 billion for mitigation.

- Multilateral ODA for climate change in fragile contexts favours mitigation projects (68%) and is mostly (83%) in the form of loans.

Dima Reda Moderator

Before responding to Catherine’s comment, I wanted to welcome everyone to the e-discussion on Climate finance for sustaining peace. My apologies for being late to start today. I will be your moderator this week until 20 October and am excited to help facilitate our discussions around this topic.

Moving to Catherine’s input from earlier today. The figures provided from the 2019 OECD/INCAF report are a great entry point for our discussion and will be interesting to  dissect and tease-out further. I am particularly surprised by the last bullet that 68% of ODA for fragile countries has been channeled to mitigation and that the funding is mostly (83%) in the form of loans.

UNDP’s ongoing study, for which the discussion over the next several weeks will contribute to, will afford us the opportunity to examine this data in more detail but it does seem that funding climate change adaptation streams may be a missed opportunity in working toward sustaining peace. Particularly, areas that are increasingly vulnerable to climate risk such as food and water security.

What are people’s experience around climate change projects generally in a fragile context (both mitigation and adaptation)? Is it surprising to others that  Multilateral ODA for climate change in fragile contexts favors mitigation and is mostly in the form of loans?

Catherine Wong Moderator

Yes, I would agree too, the split between mitigation and adaptation flows and the mechanisms used (in this case loans) would be important to unpack.

Michael Moroz

While ODA and development flows are a significant factor for climate adaptation (and mitigation) in fragile contexts, we shouldn't overlook the flows that are involved in multi-year humanitarian responses.  In some cases, where response flows have been constant through prolonged and often protracted crises, significant humanitarian funding is put towards resilience.  In cases of addressing environmental damage from conflict, ameliorating poor agricultural infrastructure/waterways/irrigation, implementing independent and local sustainable energy, many interventions seen as humanitarian aid are mitigating climate security risks.  How we identify and map this funding is the challenge - especially when political contexts favor short term responses over longer term solutions for the displaced.

Dima Reda Moderator

Thank you for bringing up this point Michael. The type of funding you have outlined can indeed mitigate climate security risks but will be difficult to trace as they are likely not codified or tagged as such. Maybe mapping out how the broad areas  you've identified (as well as others)  link directly or indirectly to building resilience to climate risks? Does anyone know if this already exists somewhere? Is it something that would be useful to create in the context of our report?

Dima Reda Moderator

Michael's comment above reminded me that Save the Children Australia is the first non-environmental, non-governmental humanitarian organization to be accredited by the Green Climate Fund (GCF) - https://www.greenclimate.fund/ae/sca

This will allow the organization to access climate finance directly on behalf of countries. Given their ability to receive accreditation, they might be a good organization to contact about some of the issues Michael has raised above.

Dima Reda Moderator

The GCF recently approved a project in Sudan (August 2020) Building resilience in the face of climate change within traditional rain fed agricultural and pastoral systems in Sudan:

https://www.greenclimate.fund/document/building-resilience-face-climate…

The project mentions the "enhanced capacity of the state-level administration in areas of environmental governance, management of shared natural resources, inter- and intra-state relations and how to establish a network of early warning systems will help prevent conflicts and out-mitigation in the targeted areas" however, when you examine the theory of change for the project reducing conflict or sustaining peace are not mainstreamed into the overall strategy and rationale of the proposal. 

Do others have examples of where peace building or conflict avoidance is embedded clearly as an outcome of a climate change project?  


Please log in or sign up to comment.