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.
- How can climate finance contribute to sustaining peace?
- 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?
- 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?
- 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?
|
These datapoints suprised me too. They seem generally in line with the overall skew in climate finance towards mitigation (with only around 27% going to adaptation overall in 2018), so fragile states aren't getting less than the average share of adaptation finance at least. But it does raise the question of why the adaptation needs in these countries aren't getting more priority. One read might be that they are also attracting a lot of infrastructure aid for e.g. energy systems and transport (mitigation), which balances out adaptation flows. Does anyone have any insights on why the breakdown is like this?
We also know investment in these countries is still less overall than needs, so perhaps the bigger question is how should we scale up investments in both mitigaation, adaptation and ensure both are designed to foster human security?