Module 3.1. Key Concepts

Successful locally led action will holistically engage the complex, multidirectional interactions between climate, peace and security.

Module 3.1 addresses :

This module will help users:

• consider the trade-offs between short-term solutions and long-term interventions
• appreciate how interactions within the climate, peace and security nexus might point toward less obvious responses to a specific concern
• value the multifaceted potential of nature-based solutions

There are trade-offs in any project. Sometimes, these may be the result of contradictory goals by different community groups, requiring careful negotiation to reach a compromise. But there will also be any number of trade-offs due to operational constraints – be they related to financial resources, staff capacity or security conditions.

Climate change is, by its nature, a long-term process. Meaningfully responding to the full complexity of climate change impacts cannot be a short-term project, but relatively few organisations will be able to take on a multi-decade programme. Locally led action can help address this dilemma, as community ownership and engagement can support the long-term sustainability of interventions. With enough community buy-in, and sufficient capacity development as part of the project’s early stages, it is possible to launch a programme with longer term impact (one that will continue after its initial, ‘supervised’ launch) in a relatively short amount of time.

However, community participation is not a silver bullet, and it is important to be realistic about capacity and trade-offs when deciding on an intervention. If the continuity of a long-term initiative cannot be guaranteed, a shorter-term project may be more appropriate. For example, a large-scale infrastructure project may be the most effective way to support community resource access long-term, but if there are no resources or technical capacities for infrastructure maintenance, the community may end up worse than they started after it breaks down. If the damage happens early on, the infrastructure may not have even had time to offset the resources used in its construction, such that the project ends up being carbon-positive and climate-negative. In this case, a project at a smaller scale and/or one focused on social norms rather than physical infrastructure would have been more appropriate.

Understanding trade-offs, and explicitly taking them into account in decision-making, is an important part of successful and transparent interventions. Managing community expectations and being clear about which elements from problem analysis can and cannot be addressed by various solutions is important.

The climate, peace and security nexus creates a complex context in which to work, but also provides a diverse range of entry points for intervention. The growing field of environmental peacebuilding practice showcases how shared ecological relationships (whether common dependency on a natural resource or a mutually held environmental value) may enable peacemakers to tackle sociopolitical concerns through a seemingly ‘unrelated’ environmental angle. Conversely, the detrimental impacts of climate change and environmental stressors can be reduced (or, at least, equitably adapted to) through good governance and community management.

When designing interventions to address interlinking climate, peace, and stability risks, the entirety of the nexus should be considered for possible solutions. The interactions between climate change, conflict, and communities mean that the most effective response to a concern may not be the most ‘obvious’ or directly connected. A goal of water provision for a community may be best achieved by microloans to women. Social cohesion between longstanding rival groups may be built through joint land conservation goals or endangered species protection efforts. Climate adaptation efforts may require expanded diplomatic relations with a neighbouring country.

Most likely, the most promising solution will be one that engages both environmental and sociopolitical interactions. Integrating climate change adaptations with conflict prevention and peacebuilding activities and vice versa has been demonstrated in multiple contexts to be particularly effective: the combined approach provides a wider array of tools, and produces a wider array of benefits.

In 2022, the UN Environment Assembly adopted a resolution formally recognising and supporting Nature-based Solutions (NbS), which they define as “actions to protect, sustainably manage and restore natural or modified ecosystems that address societal challenges effectively and adaptively, simultaneously providing human well-being and biodiversity benefits”.

As discussed in the UNEP policy brief on Nature-based Solutions for Peace: Emerging Practice and Options for Policymakers, a “growing body of research has demonstrated the effectiveness and efficiency of nature-based solutions in delivering impactful outcomes for communities and their surrounding environment. This has led to widespread adoption of NbS in climate action. More than 65% of parties of the Paris Agreement have included NbS as part of their efforts to reach their Nationally Determined Contributions, while more than 100 countries have pointed to specific NbS actions in their climate mitigation and adaptation efforts. This growing practice has provided fertile ground for a rapidly growing science of NbS, including in the areas of forest restoration, landslide recovery, biodiversity conservation, and coastal and riverine protection. In urban settings with extreme heat and flood risks, NbS are now central to governmental responses, including in terms of green cover, drought management, and city planning”.

Commonly used nature-based solutions include reforestation; wetland restoration; coral reef rehabilitation; riparian buffers; climate-smart agriculture; biodiversity corridors; and rainwater harvesting.

Nature-based solutions will often be appropriate for Locally Led Action on Climate, Peace and Security projects, as they can engage a wide range of community participants and provide a range of spinoff benefits; however, it is important to remember that conflict sensitivity must be applied to all interventions, including nature-based solutions. Some concerns surrounding NbS include challenges related to applying and tracking related economic claims as well as the potential for corporate ‘greenwashing’ without accompanying safeguards for vulnerable communities. Approached correctly, though, nature-based solutions can contribute to restoring ecosystems, building climate resilience and enhancing social cohesion.