Research Title: Connecting Conflict, Climate Change and Ecological Crisis

Research Authors: Tom Gillhespy & Dr Haseeb Md Irfanullah

Research Publisher: ITAD Ltd.

Research Publication date: October 2021

What does research tell us about the multifaceted relationship between conflict & stability and climate & ecological crises?

In the face of multiple global crises - COVID-19, climate change, ecological crises like desertification and land degradation - all sectors, including peacebuilding, need to mainstream climate and ecological crises into their operations, irrespective of their primary purposes and visions. In a recent report Connecting Conflict, Climate Change and Ecological Crisis, ITAD researchers look deeply into the ‘conflict-climate change-ecological crisis nexus’ and explore how to integrate and normalize these climate and ecological concerns within conflict and peacebuilding programming.

The research provides a key evidence review highlighting current knowledge about the intersectionality between:

• Climate change and conflict & stability

• Environmental degradation and conflict & stability

• Interaction among multiple security risks

Key reading for anyone considering peacebuilding program design that incorporates any of these key components or within environments where these conditions exist.

The researchers further show the strong synergies and links between conflict & stability and climate & ecological crises, positing a new framing that broadens our understanding of the ‘conflict-climate change-ecological crisis nexus’ and highlights potential opportunities for cross-sectoral, system-wide programming. They provide practical options to help program designers, funders, and MEL practitioners think through how climate and ecological programming can be linked to conflict mitigation.

One key area that stands out is with regards to economic factors and activities. In AfP’s Violence Reduction Subsector Review, we recommended that the peacebuilding field should focus its programmatic and evaluative time and resources on addressing the root causes of violence outside of solely economic factors and should incorporate activities addressing economic empowerment programming as supportive outcomes towards the larger goal of violence reduction. This finding mirrors the evidence that economic factors are not the primary drivers behind violence and conflict and economic empowerment programming alone is insufficient to reduce violence; however, a majority of programming still integrate economic empowerment as primary objectives. 

This research presents options for incorporating Nature-Based Solutions (NbS) that enhance local livelihoods and economic activities into conflict mitigation programming. NbS activities have been shown to have high economic recovery potential by creating new jobs and developing income generating options, coinciding with greater resiliency and program sustainability in the face of expected climatic and ecological changes in the future. These practical NbS options warrant greater research, but could offer key opportunities for economic empowerment programming that dually supports programmatic sustainability and resiliency; while contributing to peacebuilding programming focused on addressing the root causes of violence. 

The researchers highlight the limited evidence of NbS effectiveness in the Global South, providing a key opportunity for the peacebuilding field to put these concepts into practice, learn from and improve them across multiple contexts, and to lead on this research as part of our growing body of evidence.

A second key contribution from this research is the promotion of greater integration of climate change components into conflict analyses and conflict sensitivity into climate action. The researchers provide practical examples of questions that could be added to conflict analysis frameworks to better integrate climate change. They assert that when the role of environment and climate is included this adds substantial value to the conflict analyses because it improves understanding of both the current and future conflict dynamics. As USAID is finalizing the updates to their Conflict Assessment Framework (CAF) to a new release of the CAF 3.0 and the United States Institute of Peace is undertaking an evidence review to contribute directly to the development of a "Programmatic Conflict Analysis Tool”, these are practical options that could and should be included within these new frameworks.

This report highlights the intersectionality of the climate & ecological crisis with that of conflict & stabilisation, providing practical options for programming, guidance for integrating cross-sector tools like NbS and conflict sensitivity, and areas for future research and collaboration.

AfP Blog Author: Jessica Baumgardner-Zuzik, Senior Director - Learning & Evaluation