Climate change and conflict Zones – a case for working with armed groups and local communities
Alex Rose-Innes
Conflict-ridden countries are among the most vulnerable to climate change and are largely excluded from climate adaptation programmes and funding. With COP28 currently underway in Dubai and many disappointments during the event, these war zones are the least equipped to deal with finance change as funding is channelled through national governments, which might not be able to work in areas affected by conflict or beyond their control.
Civilians and even armed groups alike are increasingly concerned about climate change. The international community, however, is doing little to address its impact in these vulnerable areas.
The Notre Dame Global Adaptation Initiative has identified 25 countries as most vulnerable to climate change and least prepared to adapt to its impact. Of these, 15 have been hit hard by conflict. The list includes Somalia, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Afghanistan, mostly on the African continent.
By their nature, conflict-ridden areas have weak or no government structures. The current approach to climate adaptation does not include non-state actors and local communities, who might work more effectively in these areas.
With the COP28 climate meeting in Dubai, the issue of climate change adaptation in conflict areas has been in the news. A draft declaration by the COP presidency calls for immediate action and urgent funding for these vulnerable communities. The text is not legally binding, but it goes further than any previous COP statements on climate impacts in conflict areas.
Ashley Jackson, Research Associate at the Overseas Development Institute, King’s College London, has spent more than a decade researching conflict and insurgency with colleagues from the Overseas Development Institute and the Geneva Graduate Institute, investigated the failure of multilateral institutions to include conflict areas in their climate adaptation programmes, reviewing existing literature on this. The team identified gaps in climate adaptation efforts and funding mechanisms that would work in conflict areas, arguing for working with local communities and civil society, as well as engaging non-state armed groups.
The Conflict-Climate Gap
Conflict-affected countries receive significantly less climate adaptation funding, about one-third of per capita climate financing compared to conflict-free countries. Adaptation programming and financing mechanisms are not designed for areas experiencing conflict or those beyond state control.
In some areas, non-state armed groups have stepped into the gap. In Myanmar, the Karen National Union operates its own departments focusing on land, forestry and wildlife conservation. The Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) has incorporated environmental protection clauses into its internal codes of conduct. In Somalia, Al Shabaab has imposed fines for cutting down trees and even banned plastic bags. In the Sahel, armed groups exploit the environmental drivers of conflict in propaganda and recruitment.
Armed groups take up the mantle of environmental protection for a complicated mixture of reasons as they may also contribute to ecological destruction. Mostly however, it enhances their legitimacy with local populations, desperate for relief from the impact of climate change.
Where this is the case, it may present an opening for climate adaptation interventions. Armed groups control significant territories, often rich in natural resources. Their participation can be critical in taking wide-scale climate actions. According to those in the know armed groups seeking statehood or other forms of legitimacy are often willing to comply with international norms to gain positive recognition, untapped potential to save lives and mitigate the impact of climate change in areas under armed group control.
Research Findings
Research suggests that this engagement could help build peace and reduce violence. Climate change is often portrayed as driving conflict or as a “threat multiplier” with impacts ranging from resource scarcity to displacement of people. Engagement with armed actors on environment and climate change can also serve as a building block for peace.
This is especially true in countries such as Colombia, where environmental factors contributed to the conflict. Environmental and resource issues are an often neglected aspect of preparing for peace talks. Climate work in areas beyond state control is fraught with ethical, legal and practical dilemmas.
There is always the risk that armed groups may only pay lip service to climate change issues to further empower or legitimise them. Additionally, unlike government counterparts, armed groups and communities in these areas may lack the technical capacity to understand the ecological complexities involved in climate adaptation.
Climate Impacts Beyond State Control
These risks must be navigated carefully. However, as had been established during the current Dubai COP28, the urgent need for adaptation outweighs the potential drawbacks. Sadly, despite this urgent priority, COP28’s belated interest in conflict affected areas is welcomed experts say doesn’t nearly reach far enough. It is called for that this recognition should be followed by concrete policy and funding shifts tailored to the challenges of working in conflict areas and areas beyond state control.
Climate adaptation actors do not need to engage directly with armed forces, but customary authorities, humanitarians and local peace builders can be intermediaries, ensuring interventions are appropriate and accepted by all.
Climate adaptation in conflict areas requires a totally different approach. At a minimum, it requires going beyond national governments to directly engaging with conflict-affected communities. It also, to some extent, means devolving decision-making to communities themselves.