This study maps the extent to which climate, peace and security intersections are described and addressed within the National Adaptation Plans (NAPs). Consideration of violent conflict, insecurity and fragility are salient to climate change vulnerability and thus, the effective design and implementation of the NAPs, in particular, ensuring that adaptation measures reach and meet the needs of climate-vulnerable conflict-affected populations which otherwise risk being left behind. Conflict and fragility drivers, if not fully considered, may result in unsustainable or maladapted solutions and are thus critical considerations as climate change adaptations investments which currently, at a global and local level pale in the face of growing adaptation needs and likewise need to be robust in conflict and fragility-affected contexts. Peacebuilding strategies similarly need the same kind awareness of adaptation-related considerations.
This analysis and the findings of the typology are therefore useful and may offer an initial blueprint for the mainstreaming of climate-related security risks into NAPs. The study takes the methodology approach from the UNDP (2020) study with UNFCCC, “A typology and analysis of climate-related security risks in the first-round Nationally Determined Contributions” as its point of departure, to develop a more extensive list of terms and themes and extend the typology to examine the NAPs in greater detail. This report more specifically also builds on the IISD (2020) study of the 18 NAPs available at the time, to consider now three years later, what additional insights can be further garnered from the larger data set of all 44 NAPs available at the end of March 2023 in addition to the earlier of work, inter alia, of Tänzler, Maas, & Carius (2010) which examines conflict sensitivity in the NAPA process.
The analysis and those risks and measures identified in the NAPs may be considered indicative of the level of awareness of the interactions between climate, peace and security only and the actions and measures needed to promote adaptation, conflict prevention and sustaining peace. Needless to say, they should not, however, be considered alone as a sole basis to how climate-related peace and security risks should be addressed in the NAPs.
The study does provide an important reference point to explore the scope of climate-related security risks in the NAPs, specifically and climate change adaptation policy and planning and related sectoral policies in general and how they are currently being addressed from a policy and strategic perspective. Adaptation practice, especially in conflict-affected and fragile contexts and the integration of conflict-sensitivity and peacebuilding approaches and in responding to the actual realities on the ground obviously requires a different methodology, but could equally be informed by these results. Further analysis, consultation and engagement including of local level conflict prevention and peacebuilding expertise, would be critical to informing NAP processes. This also cannot be successful in isolation, peacebuilding efforts also need to reinforce adaptation priorities.
The study brings to light the experience of various countries and territories which have been underserved by the climate security agenda thus far and could benefit from further support in adaptation planning and peacebuilding. Findings moreover show a need to not only focus on support on NAPs and peacebuilding in countries and territories suffering violent conflict, but also on post-conflict contexts and with broader lens to promote integrated prevention and sustainable peace in adaptation planning in general. The purpose of the exercise was not to try to establish a causal relationship between climate and conflict, nevertheless many NAPs do make reference, inter alia, to the risk multiplier effects of climate change on drivers of conflict and fragility