Since its last major famine more than a decade ago, Somalia has received well over a billion dollars a year in humanitarian aid. But that spending – aimed at meeting immediate basic needs for food and water in the conflict-ravaged Horn of Africa country – has not reduced demands for help, which are instead rising as climate change brings more frequent and severe floods and droughts.
With supplies of international aid increasingly falling short around the world as the number and scale of crises and disasters grows, humanitarian groups are trying out new approaches to close the gap, including “anticipatory action” which pushes small amounts of cash to those in the path of a looming disaster, to help them better protect themselves and their assets.
In countries such as Bangladesh, with strong early warning systems and disaster-reduction mechanisms in place, such efforts have been shown to cut losses by about $7 for each $1 invested. But in the world’s most fragile and conflict-affected states – from Somalia to Afghanistan, and Iraq to Chad – systems like this are often missing.
Reducing humanitarian needs and boosting resilience there will require building basic infrastructure, something that can only happen if development, peace-building and relief groups – and their funders – get out of their comfort zones and overcome obstacles to working together, resilience researchers say.
“The only way to get ahead of a disaster is not by mitigating its effects but by avoiding it happening in the first place – by investing in disaster-risk reduction and climate adaptation,” said Mauricio Vazquez, who leads work on climate change and conflict at ODI Global, a London-based think-tank.
“You don’t need to wait for a bad weather forecast to do something. Anticipatory action done by humanitarians doesn’t create opportunities for people, it just helps make the best of a situation,” he said in an interview with Climate Home.
Weak governance exposes people
Abdihakim Ainte, director of climate change for Somalia’s prime minister, agreed that “vulnerability primarily stems from the dysfunction of key institutions.”
“The weaker the institutions, the more susceptible people are to every shock and disruption,” he told Climate Home.
At last year’s COP28 climate talks, more than 100 countries, banks and other organisations issued a call for “collective action to build climate resilience at the scale and speed required in highly vulnerable countries and communities, particularly those threatened or affected by fragility or conflict.”
Innovative efforts to make that happen are ramping up. Financiers including the African Development Bank, for instance, are increasingly trying to move development cash through peace-building and humanitarian groups on the ground in conflict-hit areas.
The bank has signed an agreement with the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), an organisation that “has the ability to operate in very insecure environments. They stay there – they’ve been there for decades,” said Fredrick Teufel, the bank’s lead coordinator of efforts to boost its investments in fragile contexts.
The IFRC focuses on using humanitarian grants to deliver short-term aid. But in places like conflict-plagued Goma, in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, or in Somalia, “there’s no reason they cannot use that delivery capacity there to also advance irrigation (or) community-based solar,” Teufel said in an interview with Climate Home.
Humanitarian groups can give funders crucial and otherwise unavailable insights into what communities affected by conflict themselves see as the most useful investments, he said, noting that “they all want development solutions, not another bag of rice.”
But significant institutional obstacles stand in the way of scaling up such cooperation, including a need by humanitarian groups to be seen as neutral in conflict zones, and accounting rules that require different types of development and climate funding to be kept in separate pots to avoid double counting.
Humanitarian action limited
In Goma, in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), which focuses on protecting victims of armed conflict, is working with development partners and funders over seven years to rehabilitate and expand the Goma West water system – a project that serves both development and humanitarian needs.
But such projects don’t lead to meeting broad country-level needs, warned Catherine-Lune Grayson, head of policy at the ICRC.
In order to protect their ability to access conflict-hit communities, humanitarian groups need to carefully avoid taking sides in political disputes – and choices about partners and where to spend development money are often political.
“We have to tread a fine line. Where do we join forces, and where do we need to keep a healthy distance so it’s not read as too political?” Grayson asked, emphasising the need for “complementary” rather than “joint” work.
Scale is another issue. “We can help rehabilitate the water system in Goma, but you cannot ask the ICRC to restore and expand all water systems across the country. We will say we’re not equipped to do this,” she said.
Still, the view that countries struggling with conflict are not the sole responsibility of humanitarian agencies is fortunately growing, she said.
“A few years ago, there would not even have been a discussion about this. There’s been a real shift,” she added.
Maladaptation?
The different time horizons of humanitarian groups – focused on meeting short-term needs – and development actors – focused on longer-term aims – are another area that needs attention as groups try to work together, said Manisha Gulati, a global risks and resilience researcher with ODI Global.
In Somalia, for instance, wells and water storage are often being built to meet immediate humanitarian demand – but analysis by ODI researchers suggests the money is not being spent where it will be most needed in the future, as climate change impacts strengthen, she said.
“We have mapped where water insecurity is now and where it will get worse – and that’s where we should be thinking about. That’s how we prevent the next drought and humanitarian crisis,” Gulati said.
Today “we’re digging wells that won’t work in the long term. It’s maladaptation and we’re not using finance well if we’re using it in a manner where in the next 5-10 years we create a problem,” she said.
Simply improving communication among those working to solve problems in armed conflict areas is one way to move ahead, Gulati said. “How do we talk about collective action when agencies have no idea what the others are doing?” she asked.
Ainte, of Somalia, said efforts to win resources for crucial development in conflict-hit countries – a challenge as development aid stagnates – can often come into conflict with appeals for humanitarian aid, which keep the focus on vulnerability.
“The humanitarian narrative has to change to a development narrative. Somalia has resources that need to be invested in. We need that kind of mentality, that we are a country that has potential and deserves investment, rather than a country that has a problem,” he said.
Need to fix systems
But winning funding to boost development and create resilient systems in fragile countries will also require the countries themselves to step up, including cutting corruption and building stronger guardrails to ensure funds are used effectively, Gulati said.
“They need to understand it’s not a one-way street – they have to make an equal effort and adjustments,” she said. “You might get $100 million – but you won’t get more unless you fix the basics in your systems.”
With climate impacts surging and almost two-thirds of the world’s extreme poor expected to live in countries that are fragile or conflict-affected by 2030, the stakes for getting this cooperation right are growing, she added.
“We can keep throwing money at the humanitarian problem, but we’re not reducing the caseload,” she said. “We need to address the basic vulnerabilities that are leading to this situation. If we don’t do that, we’re not going to solve the problem.”
Sponsored by ODI Global and the Climate, Peace and Transboundary Resilience Pavilion at COP29. See our supporters page for what this means.
Laurie Goering is a freelance writer and editor based in London, UK.
The Climate, Peace and Transboundary Resilience Pavilion at COP29 will host 30 events with world-leading experts, including heads of state and other leading representatives from governments, climate funds, aid agencies, civil society organisations, and more. All events will be livestreamed. For more information visit the Pavilion page here.
The post Aid agencies grapple with climate adaptation in fragile states appeared first on Climate Home News.
Aid agencies grapple with climate adaptation in fragile states
Delegates will soon gather in the Turkish resort city of Antalya for UN climate negotiations, against a backdrop of war, energy crisis and climate extremes.
At COP31, nations will try to find agreement on various issues, including climate finance for developing countries and a global “just transition” towards a cleaner economy.
This summit is unusual due to its joint presidency, which means that Australia is leading the negotiations while Turkey hosts the conference.
Outside the formal negotiations, Turkey is also pushing its own priorities as part of a wider “action agenda”, including electrification, oceans and “green industrialisation”.
In order to track parties’ positions on key negotiating points and wider issues at COP31, Carbon Brief has analysed around 100 documents and captured them in the interactive table below.
The first column shows the countries and UN negotiating blocs, the second shows the topics up for debate and the third indicates specific issues within those topics.
The final column indicates the positions that the parties have expressed on each topic. These range from “priority” – meaning the party is likely to be pushing the issue – to “oppose”, meaning it is likely to push against it.
This is a “living document” that will be updated over the course of COP31.
Please get in touch if you would like to offer additions by emailing policy@carbonbrief.org.
Brief explanations of the key issues and jargon-filled language that permeate the talks can be found below the interactive table.
Just transition
At COP30 in Brazil in 2025, nations agreed to establish a practical mechanism to help drive a “just transition” to a low-carbon economy.
Key aspects of this “Belém-Antalya mechanism” (BAM) – often referred to as the “just transition mechanism” (JTM) – were agreed during the June climate negotiations this year, but many details are missing and dividing lines remain between parties.
Parties have disagreed about the scope of the mechanism and whether it should be tied to the provision of finance.
Nevertheless, following progress in June within the “just transition work programme” (JTWP), civil society groups highlighted that getting the mechanism up and running is a “key expected outcome” from COP31.
Climate finance
Climate finance is always a highly contested issue at UN climate negotiations.
Developing countries have successfully pushed for a “work programme” on climate finance to feature on the conference agenda.
These parties see this programme as a way to pressure developed countries into providing more funding from their public coffers, specifically under Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement. Some are even proposing a “burden sharing” arrangement for climate-finance provision.
This comes against a backdrop of major donors cutting their aid budgets and the Trump administration in the US pressuring multilateral development banks (MDBs) to drop their climate objectives.
Developed countries, which have traditionally been responsible for providing finance, would prefer to keep a broader focus on issues such as improving access to existing finance and broadening the range of donors. Some developing countries, such as small-island states, also support these goals.
Nations have also been discussing Article 2.1c of the Paris Agreement under the “Veredas dialogue”. This focuses on making all global “financial flows” consistent with climate action.
Countries have different views about what this involves, with developing countries again hoping to keep the focus on developed countries’ responsibilities to financially support them.
Adaptation and mitigation
At negotiations in June, parties were unable to agree on the details of a “global goal on adaptation” (GGA), which is intended to drive climate adaptation worldwide.
Having agreed at COP30 on a list of 59 “indicators” – ways to assess progress towards the GGA – nations now need to refine these before COP32 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. This is a highly technical process that involves a taskforce working out how to use and track these indicators.
Broadly, developing countries stress the importance of finance to fund adaptation efforts, rather than simply to track progress. They also want reassurances about a pledge made last year to “triple adaptation finance”.
At the June climate negotiations, negotiators also failed to make any progress when discussing the mitigation work programme (MWP) – the only formal agenda item that concerns cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
Among other things, parties disagreed on whether the MWP should continue running over the next few years, or simply be brought to a close.
Global stocktake and NDCs
Back in 2023, the first “global stocktake” (GST) of the Paris Agreement set out the state of climate action and what needed to be done to set the world on course.
On mitigation, nations agreed to a package of measures, including “transitioning away from fossil fuels”, tripling renewable energy and “halting and reversing deforestation” by 2030.
Some of these outcomes remain contentious among certain parties, particularly large, developing countries and those with economies that rely on fossil-fuel exports.
Developing countries have persistently argued that they need more climate finance to implement the global stocktake outcomes.
Parties were meant to update their climate plans under the Paris Agreement, informed by the first global stocktake, by 2025. These plans, known as nationally determined contributions (NDCs), cover the period out to 2035.
So far, only 150 parties – responsible for three-quarters of global emissions – have submitted new NDCs.
Iran, Vietnam, Egypt and Argentina are among those without new NDCs – and the US has withdrawn its climate plan under the Trump administration.
Some parties, such as the EU, have stressed the need for countries to submit their new NDCs ahead of COP31 – and to ensure they are aligned with the 1.5C temperature limit.
COP31 will also see the launch of the second global stocktake, which will conclude in 2028.
Action agenda and other issues
Turkey will be pushing its “action agenda” priorities at COP31, including global targets for electrification, reducing waste and reducing building-sector emissions.
(The Australian “presidency of negotiations” is intending to pursue a “cover text” decision at COP31 that may capture some of these wider targets, such as the electrification goal.)
The action agenda is meant to provide a complementary track to the formal negotiations, where governments and non-state actors can advance specific, real-world solutions.
A new COP31 presidency effort dubbed the “climate implementation bridge” is also meant to complement these ambitions by turning NDC goals into an “investable project portfolio”
Some parties have explicitly signalled their support for various elements beyond the formal negotiations, in the run-up to COP31.
For example, a joint letter signed by 105 parties called for COP31 to “put the ocean at the heart of climate action” by embedding ocean-based climate action in the UNFCCC architecture.
The post Interactive: Who wants what at the COP31 climate change summit appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Interactive: Who wants what at the COP31 climate change summit
Prepared by a coalition of nine Western Australian union, industry, conservation, and community organisations—including UnionsWA, the Conservation Council WA, and the Smart Energy Council—the WA Clean Energy, Jobs & Industry Plan provides a practical roadmap to transform Western Australia into a clean energy powerhouse while creating thousands of secure local jobs.
Western Australia stands at a pivotal crossroads: lead the global clean energy economy or watch investment, future industries, and secure jobs go elsewhere. The WA Clean Energy, Jobs & Industry Plan outlines a transformative blueprint to harness the state’s world-class solar and wind resources. Discover how legislated renewable targets, green iron manufacturing, and a dedicated regional training strategy can generate tens of thousands of local jobs, lower household bills, and build a resilient, net-zero future for all Western Australians.
