Module 1.1. Key Concepts

Ensuring that climate adaptation efforts contribute to sustaining peace requires an inclusive and conflict-sensitive approach, which can be best achieved through locally led action.

Module 1.1 introduces the logic behind and importance of locally led action, discussing:

This module will help users:

• identify advantages and potential challenges of participatory approaches
• gain familiarity with the Locally Led Action for Climate, Peace and Security framework
• understand how participation can support peace positivity in climate resilience and adaptation

Climate change and environmental degradation can exacerbate existing socio-economic vulnerabilities and instability. While these stressors can pose a threat to communities, they can also foster cooperation (see Unit 2). Integrating community participation in efforts to address climate and environment-related risks can simultaneously enhance environmental and social resilience and contribute to sustaining peace.

Participatory methods intentionally involve individuals, communities, and organisations in a particular process or approach. When done well, participation can help identify and implement solutions that are feasible, equitable, context-specific, and owned by the affected communities. Participation also engages systemically marginalised and frequently overlooked actors, promoting inclusion and justice alongside sustainability and peacebuilding. Inclusion, justice, sustainability, and peacebuilding support each other and can help redistribute power in ways that will help prevent future conflict.

Some of the tangible benefits of participatory approaches include:

• more accurate and holistic information. When diverse communities with varied perspectives are involved, a broader understanding of the concerns – and possible solutions – can be found. Analysis and monitoring throughout the project will be more detailed, nuanced, and robust.
• more inclusive and equitable actions that benefit all groups within a given context and help maintain a do-no-harm approach.
  See the well development project in rural Kenya highlighted in this Toolbox.
• enhanced trust and social cohesion within a community.
  See the results of the EU-UNEP Climate Change Project in Nepal and Sudan.
• more parallel benefits. Community engagement during project development means that side benefits of the primary initiative are more likely to be identified and implemented, while the relationships built through multi-actor participation in a project can enable future unrelated programs.
  See the work of UNFCCC Lighthouse Award winner Dar Si Hmad, whose long-term commitment to community engagement has resulted in a range of women’s and youth empowerment activities undertaken alongside a scientific fog-harvesting operation.
• more sustainable interventions. The more engaged communities are in a project, the more likely the project will have buy-in and be maintained after initial action and support are completed.
  See the water management project in Wadi El Ku, Sudan, and the oil dispute resolution process in the Pastaza, Tigre, Corrientes, and Marañon river basins of Peru, highlighted in the Environmental Security and Sustaining Peace course.

In addition to the benefits of participation, there are risks to not engaging communities during work related to socioenvironmental systems. Some of these risks are:

• a lack of trust and buy-in for potential solutions, limiting their efficacy.
  This was seen in Aynak, Afghanistan, during a peacebuilding project around extractive resources; see the Environmental Security and Sustaining Peace course for details.
• a failure to understand the extent of insecurity risks, and thus a failure to fully address them. When working in socially and environmentally complex contexts, it is easy to overlook an issue or inaccurately predict the outcome of an action. Local communities are more likely to raise issues that might otherwise be missed and/or provide early warning.
• unintentionally implementing a ‘solution’ that creates unequal benefits or actively harms.
  For an example of this, read more about the well development project in rural Kenya highlighted in this Toolbox.
• alienating excluded groups, inadvertently exacerbating social tensions and potentially instigating conflict.
  This occurred during a project at the Las Bambas and Haquira Copper Mine developments in the southern Peruvian highlands; see the case study in the Environmental Security and Sustaining Peace course.

However, it is important to note that participatory approaches come with a cost and their own obstacles. Some of the challenges with participatory approaches are:

• more work and staff expertise. Building relationships, integrating feedback (especially in the midst of contradicting ideas), and managing people all take time and training. Successful engagement often involves a dedicated community manager.
• the potential for communities to fundamentally disagree with a proposed project or program, requiring the instigator to navigate negotiations and/or be willing to radically change the project/program.
• the disappointment of unfulfilled expectations. When a project without community engagement fails, relatively few people know about that unrealised impact. If a highly participatory initiative falls apart or doesn’t achieve its objectives, there is an additional cost in the form of widespread disappointment and distress.
• the possibility of increased tensions. If not managed well, bringing together diverse community groups can create opportunities for additional clashes. When group members disagree and some individuals ‘win’ while others do not, resentment can build. Unmet goals or setbacks can spark animosity and blame among the stakeholders involved.

The greater the degree of participation, the greater the advantages will be. But challenges will also become more pronounced, and more management will be required. Basing projects on participatory methods undoubtedly pays off, but requires intentional planning and commitment.

Community mobilisation is the process of initiating involvement in a project, and should generally be completed in parallel with initial scoping and the creation of a baseline assessment. This unit explores strategies for initiating community involvement, with a focus on co-learning and co-leading. The figure below illustrates forms of community engagement (ranging from co-option to leadership) and how they affect project sustainability.

FORMS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND MOBILISATION

(see pages 4-5 of this Handbook)

The above ‘pyramid’ of participation summarises forms of community mobilisation in a project. The pyramid’s inversion reminds us that the greater the degree of participation (e.g., the more power a community has vis à vis the project), the stronger the foundation for that project will be. As mentioned earlier, stronger foundations for community participation enhance project sustainability and are more likely to support parallel benefits and/or spinoff activities.

A particularly coercive form of participation is informational, when communities are simply informed that a project will be happening, but have no say on its design or implementation. While it is better for those impacted to be informed than for a project to happen without prior knowledge, this superficial form of engagement involves coopted communities, who are forced to mobilise and/or used when an instigating organisation claims ‘consent’ was given as a result of the notification process.

An external agency may use consultational participation to show their engagement with an affected community, but the communities’ views may or may not have an actual influence on the project, as consultations do not guarantee change. During consulting processes, communities are cooperating with a project, but are given limited knowledge of its broader context and may have little idea about why they are mobilising.

Transactional participation takes place when communities receive material benefit for engaging in an activity (e.g., a cash stipend in exchange for joining a focus group study). In transactional participation, communities are contributing to and benefitting from a project’s development and/or implementation, but have little to no say over how their involvement is used.

In functional participation, a community is invited by an instigating organisation to join a specific action stage in order to fulfil a particular purpose. The groups are collaborating, but communities have little control over the broader project and are not necessarily developing their own long-term capabilities.

Relational participation involves joint decision-making between affected communities and an instigating organization. The organization and communities are involved in co-learning, sharing skills, knowledge, and resources. The level of community engagement and leadership is very high, and all involved groups benefit from capacity development — but an outside institution still has primary ownership and responsibility for the project.

Through self-mobilisational participation, communities organise and implement an activity without an external agency’s leadership. This co-leading collective action is the most involved form of community participation, and will generally be the most sustainable.

Ensuring that community participation moves beyond performative action and into genuine collaboration requires:

• being conscious of power dynamics and hierarchies;
• budgeting for participatory methodologies from the outset, including requisite staff and participant remuneration, if warranted;
• allowing for extra time and deadline flexibility;
• managing donor expectations and the assumptions of the project team; and
• adjusting the project plan and outcomes as needed to genuinely respond to the results of participatory processes.

(See this Policy Brief by Evelyn Pauls at the Berghof Foundation for more guidance on participatory methods in peace work.)

The framework of Locally Led Action for Climate, Peace and Security is inspired by previous UNEP work developing Community Environmental Action Planning (CEAP). The CEAP approach allows for conflict-sensitive climate adaptation projects in rural settings to be conducted in a highly participatory, collaborative manner.

Community Environmental Action Planning embraces local people as planners, managers and stewards of their ecosystems and natural resources. CEAP uses participatory methods to collaboratively assess needs and implement solutions. These participatory methodologies were pioneered by the UNHCR in Eastern Sudan, with environmental dimensions furthered added to the approach by the UNEP during projects implemented in Sudan, Nepal, Côte d’Ivoire, and Darfur. The concepts, tools and methods presented in this toolkit build on CEAP experiences, adding new ideas and materials and to support robust work in multiple contexts.

When using the Locally Led Action for Climate, Peace and Security framework, a participatory approach to conflict-sensitive and peace-positive climate resilience involves:

• initial scoping: developing a baseline assessment of the environmental, social, economic and political factors that shape a community;
• community mobilisation: bringing together a diverse range of actors to collaboratively address shared concerns;
• problem analysis: examining situations in order to understand the root cause(s) of an issue;
• solution identification: determining the most appropriate response through a holistic approach to brainstorming and decision-making;
• action planning: designing a detailed strategy to cooperatively enact a chosen intervention;
• programme implementation: putting ideas into practice with attention to evolving challenges and constraints; and
• monitoring, evaluation, accountability and learning: appraising an ongoing project, making any necessary changes to maximise its positive effect.

THE LOCALLY LED ACTION FOR CLIMATE, PEACE AND SECURITY PROCESS

It is important to realise that these stages will overlap and inform each other, and should thus be seen as an iterative process. For example:

• A new development in an armed conflict may occur midway through action planning, in which case the problem analysis should be revisited to ensure the chosen intervention is still the most appropriate.
• Solution identification and action planning will overlap a great deal, as different ideas and assessments inform each other.
• Monitoring and evaluation results should be used during project implementation to make changes to the program design, in order to best serve the community and have the desired effect. (See the intervention cycle in Unit 6.)
• Throughout the duration of the project, community engagement and buy-in should be both a primary goal and tool. It is important to slow down and create space for participation, knowing that moving forward together will result in a more substantial and sustainable outcome than moving further but without buy-in.

Because climate, peace and security are closely linked (see Unit 2), it is important for environmental initiatives to be conflict-sensitive, and for peacebuilding efforts to emphasise climate resiliency.

Conflict sensitivity involves (1) a thorough understanding of the political economy in which a project is operating, with particular attention to conflict dynamics, (2) the adoption of a ‘do-no-harm’ approach, ensuring that activities do not exacerbate pre-existing grievances or inadvertently create inequalities, and (3) sustaining peace as a core goal, implementing projects that have a positive impact for all (i.e., are “peace-positive”).

As highlighted in the UNEP report on Nature-based Solutions for Peace: Emerging Practice and Options for Policymakers, conflict sensitivity should be integrated in climate adaptation efforts so that “programming can create a virtuous circle, helping to address underlying conflict drivers and in turn creating a better set of conditions for protecting the environment”. The report showcased the Global Environmental Facility’s “Developing an Integrated Protected Area System for the Cardamom Mountains” project as an example of conflict-sensitive approaches to climate, peace and security. This GEF project focused on involving local communities in conservation efforts to mitigate conflicts, emphasizing a participatory process to establishing village conservation stewardship agreements and village development plans using microfinancing. Financial incentives were provided for monitoring and detecting wildlife and forest crime. These efforts successfully reduced local conflicts by aligning the interests of the community with conservation goals, creating economic opportunities, and enhancing local governance structures. By integrating local communities into the conservation process, the project not only protected biodiversity but also fostered a sense of ownership and responsibility among the residents, thereby reducing the likelihood of conflict over natural resources.

The report further highlights the importance of adopting a political economy lens as part of conflict sensitivity, as this helps projects “to develop effective interventions that reduced the risks of unintended consequences”. This is important both for urban areas (where inclusive projects “can help to respond to new pressures on cities by adressing resource scarcity, improving living conditions and enhancing social cohesion, thereby reducing the risks of new sources of conflict”) and agricultural settings (where “equitable and meaningful participation from all social groups, including women and marginalized groups are the best way to avoid unintended outcomes”).