Knowledge co-generation and management

Through knowledge co-generation and management, the Climate Security Mechanism (CSM) contributes to a stronger and data-driven evidence base as well as a set of tools enabling UN entities, in particular at local level, to analyze climate-related peace and security risks and develop response strategies in an integrated, gender-sensitive manner that takes local and indigenous knowledge as well as nature-based solutions into account.

A strong evidence base regarding the global linkages between climate change, peace, and security is an important building block toward effective risk management. More needs to be done to strengthen our shared understanding of climate-related security risks. The CSM supports efforts in this regard by co-generating new knowledge, contributing and supporting relevant actors to fill research/policy/practice gaps, and contributing to the effective management of existing data and analysis in a clearing house function. This knowledge and evidence base is not for pure research purposes but helps the CSM to perform its advocacy, partnership and convening functions, inform climate, peace and security global policy, and contribute to a forward-looking research agenda. It provides up-to-date content to the capacity building efforts and helps to channel good practice to field support through backstopping. The knowledge and evidence base are informed by CSM’s own first-hand knowledge gained from support to field action. Knowledge and evidence base is further consolidated by partnerships with research partners, regional and civil society organizations, through workshops and exchanges of information.

Thematic Review on Climate Security and Peacebuilding

The Thematic Review on Climate Security and Peacebuilding, commissioned by DPPA’s Peacebuilding Support Office (PBSO) in partnership with FAO, UNICEF, the CSM and the United Kingdom, and led by UN University’s Centre for Policy Research (UNU CPR), distills trends and lessons from CPS and environmental peacebuilding programming supported by the Peacebuilding Fund (PBF). It suggests guidance for future CPS investments in fragile and conflict-affected contexts. Key findings and recommendations include:

• Cross-border and regional approaches: Due to the transnational nature of CPS risks, cross-border and regional CPS approaches are key and related programming should have a greater focus on building political engagement around the issue.
• Risk-tolerant approach: Of the 10 countries that received the most CPS and environmental peacebuilding PBF funding between 2017-2021, nine were among the most vulnerable to climate change. Effective PBF investments can offer proof of concept that other climate funds and donors can consider scaling up.
• Co-benefits of climate, peace and security: Investment in CPS and environmental peacebuilding approaches, including improvements to agriculture and natural resource infrastructure, get to the heart of what many communities view as both their most pressing human security concerns, and the factors that contribute to persistent conflict and competition. Greater such investment should be encouraged.
• Gender-climate-peace and security nexus: Many projects utilize natural resource management or localized climate adaptation as an entry point for greater inclusion of women and youth in local governance and decision-making processes. Greater support to learning in this field is however still necessary.
• Reinforcing project design, learning and innovation: While it is important to continue to reinforce existing guidance on project design, monitoring and evaluation, it is critical to promote flexible project implementation and encourage check-ins or referrals back to the “theory of change” throughout the project cycle to strengthen learning and reflection on the relatively new field of CPS programming.