- What timeline options were delegates debating?
- How did the timeline discussions unfold?
- What were the main points of disagreement?
- Why is the IPCC in a ‘serious funding crisis’?
- How have scientists reacted?
- What other issues remain unresolved?
- How are the IPCC AR7 reports progressing?
- How might the IPCC use AI and enhance gender inclusivity?
In recent years, fresh conflicts have erupted across the globe with alarming regularity, coinciding with a decade of record high temperatures.
While the wars in Eastern Europe and the Middle East tend to receive the bulk of global attention, there are many other conflicts that are equally severe and protracted. According to analysis from the Peace Research Institute Oslo, 59 conflicts were recorded in 2023, the highest number since the end of the Second World War.
Many people would assume that climate adaptation takes a back seat when confronted with conflict. But new research from the Adaptation Fund provides insights and firsthand experience of successful projects operating within fragile states and conflict-affected countries.
The fund has invested $1.2 billion across 180 projects around the world – and so it’s to be expected that some of these would fall within areas of potential conflict. A number of projects are within countries, such as Mali, where wars have raged for years, while others are in places where sporadic and unpredictable violence can suddenly break out.
Still others are in especially fragile areas, such as the Volta Basin in West Africa, which is highly vulnerable to devastating floods and droughts. Knowing how to quickly respond and adapt is crucial within these different contexts, researchers found.
The study highlights a number of key factors for improving the outcomes of projects in conflict zones: strengthening institutions, ensuring local ownership of finance, allowing for flexibility on climate funding, building strong partnerships and close monitoring are all seen as critical.
Climate change is exacerbating instability by weakening institutions, displacing communities and increasing tensions over available food and water. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change drew attention to this in its 2022 climate science report, stating “there is increasing evidence linking increased temperatures and drought to conflict risk in Africa.”
Mikko Ollikainen, head of the Adaptation Fund, commented last year that conflict-affected countries are “among the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and their needs for external assistance are high”.
He added that the fund’s research “reinforces the importance of strengthening institutions in fragile settings to deliver climate finance effectively, and building strong partnerships between governments, civil society and the private sector to ensure proper funding”.
Water conservation in Ethiopia
One case study that demonstrates these complexities is a climate-smart agriculture project in Ethiopia. The $10-million initiative took place between 2017 and 2022, and was designed to increase resilience across seven ‘woredas’ (districts), vulnerable to drought.
These districts included areas both designated as arid and semi-arid, owing to the predominance of drylands throughout the country. This can make farming difficult as crop production is largely dependent on varying levels of rainfall. An estimated 8 million households in the country earn a living through small-scale subsistence farming, and the practice is of critical importance to overall food supplies.
One of the districts involved in the project was Tigray, an area in the northernmost reaches of Ethiopia, and at the time the site of intense fighting between the government and a paramilitary group called the Tigray Defense Forces.
Can climate funders overcome fear to tread in conflict zones?
The outbreak of conflict meant that planned infrastructure development in the region was delayed and staff were unable to assess sites. Therefore, the project focused on strengthening institutional capacity and increasing local awareness and ownership over adaptation activities in other districts.
One of the long-term benefits was the successful engagement of local communities to provide common training on using new water facilities. According to researchers, water stress was reduced in affected communities as an underground source of drinking water was provided and local training given to ensure its maintenance.
Over 15,000 households benefited from access to safe drinking water, and a further 8,500 farmers were trained in irrigation agriculture. In addition, 3,300 hectares of degraded land were restored using soil and water conservation techniques, such as constructing shallow wells, small dams and hillside terraces to prevent water runoff.
The impact of these interventions was to reduce conflict in parts of the country where climate change is fuelling tensions over the availability of freshwater.
Cristina Dengel, the Adaptation Fund’s knowledge management officer, who coordinated the study, said: “The water facilities helped to drastically limit the conflict between crop farmers and livestock herders at the local level. Even if anecdotal, it shows the potential of climate adaptation projects to have a positive impact in reducing conflict and fragility.”
This success has been used as a template for a much larger project funded by Green Climate Fund which could reach ten times as many districts.
Building trust
Working in conflict-affected countries means having a different mindset about what can be achieved. In Ethiopia, the security situation in Tigray meant it wasn’t possible to operate in the region. As such, attention turned to the other districts involved in the project and how to ensure the best possible outcomes – and reduce further conflict – for people on the ground.
Speaking at a COP29 event on adaptation in conflict areas co-organised by the Adaptation Fund and the Global Environment Facility, Srilata Kammila, head of climate change adaptation at the United Nations Development Programme, said working in fragile states is complex for a host of reasons.
Not only are institutions weaker to implement projects over the long-term, but there is also often discord between communities and the government. “The people in these situations have been affected with lack of trust in the government and other entities coming from outside. Building that trust and engaging communities becomes a critical part and entry point of designing adaptation projects,” said Kammila.
Record-hot 2024 shows world must adapt to extremes, says EU climate service
Researchers found that in the case of Ethiopia, and others like it, having flexibility to adapt to a rapidly evolving situation is critical, together with community ownership over how projects are designed and implemented. This is easier said than done while in a conflict zone, but it at least provides better odds for success.
Ollikainen told Climate Home he hoped lessons learned in Ethiopia and the other case studies analysed will be applied elsewhere as conflicts continue to put pressure on local populations struggling with worsening climate extremes.
“We know that people need our help and it’s our responsibility to ensure financing is there to support them,“ he said. “As the climate crisis intensifies, we need to be prepared to work in conflict zones and let communities know we aren’t going to abandon them.”
Sponsored by the Adaptation Fund. See our supporters page for what this means.
Adam Wentworth is a freelance writer based in Brighton, UK.
The post Renewed global violence puts pressure on climate adaptation appeared first on Climate Home News.
Continue Reading
Three countries have been named by the Paris Agreement’s compliance committee for failing to submit a nationally determined contribution (NDC) and repeatedly snubbing offers of help with their climate plans.
After months of internal debate over whether to identify serial non-responders, the Paris Agreement’s Implementation and Compliance Committee (PAICC) named the three countries which have failed to engage with it over their NDCs on Friday.
It named Democratic Republic of Congo, Senegal and North Korea in a footnote of its annual report, adding that it decided to name them “with a view to facilitating engagement”, adding that representatives of the three nations had been invited to its meeting in early 2027 “with the purpose of identifying any challenges and constraints”.
“The Committee noted the importance of Parties engaging with the Committee in a timely manner, while noting that some delays may be due to the national capabilities and circumstances of the Parties”, the report said.
-
Under US pressure, World Bank says it will back gas “where appropriate”
The US wants the World Bank to expand its gas support while climate campaigners are pushing for it to end – its head spoke this week of limited backing for the fossil fuel -
IPCC scientists vow to press on with climate reports despite political deadlock
After governments again failed to agree a timeline, nearly 120 IPCC authors pledged to complete their assessment on time and with full scientific rigour -
Paris Agreement committee snubbed over missing NDC climate plans
Many governments have still not submitted a nationally determined contribution to the UN, breaching a key requirement of the Paris Agreement
In July, PAICC said 12 countries had ignored its repeated attempts to discuss why they had not published an NDC as required every five years under the 2015 Paris accord.
Members of the committee had been divided over whether to name them, but at a September meeting decided to do so in their annual report to the annual climate COP summit.
By the time the report was published on Friday, only Congo, Senegal and North Korea “had not communicated an NDC or submitted a [Biennial Transparency Report] and had not yet responded to any of the Committee’s notifications, despite several reminders issued by the Committee in this regard”.
Rainforest and renewable energy ambitions
The silence from Congo and Senegal is notable because the former is home to much of the Congo Basin rainforest while the latter has sought billions of dollars in climate finance to support its renewable energy ambitions.
After Brazil, Congo has more rainforest than any country in the world. This forest, and the country’s peatlands, absorb huge amounts of greenhouse gas but are fast being lost to expanding farmland, charcoal production, logging and mining.
Senegal signed a Just Energy Transition Partnership with Canada and wealthy European nations in 2023, to help it meet its renewable energy targets under the-then government of Macky Sall. It was chair of the Least Developed Countries group between January 2022 and December 2023.
Tejas Rao, who is researching the PAICC as part of a doctoral thesis at Cambridge University, said the governments of the three countries should engage with the committee.
“Engagement costs these governments very little and the committee has shown it will listen,” he said.
“Silence leaves the committee with no basis to help, and it leaves the [governments] exposed to the narrative that they are simply disengaged,” he told Climate Home News.
Paris Agreement requirement
The 2015 Paris Agreement requires all parties to publish an NDC every five years outlining their emissions reduction targets, with each plan meant to be more ambitious than the country’s last NDC.
The latest set – the third round of plans, with new targets for 2035 – was due in February 2025. While most countries missed this deadline, all but around 30 – mostly small emitters but including Egypt, Vietnam and Argentina – have now submitted them.
Over the year, the PAICC – which is made up of government climate officials from developed and developing countries – has been communicating with governments that have not submitted NDCs and trying to overcome barriers to them doing so.
Some nations have cited exceptional circumstances as the reason for not submitting an NDC, a process that requires a significant amount of work in tracking emissions and consulting on how to curb them across the economy. For example, a letter from a Sudanese official to the PAICC, seen by Climate Home News, said that the country’s civil war had led to the suspension of its NDC preparation.
-
IPCC scientists vow to press on with climate reports despite political deadlock
After governments again failed to agree a timeline, nearly 120 IPCC authors pledged to complete their assessment on time and with full scientific rigour -
Under US pressure, World Bank says it will back gas “where appropriate”
The US wants the World Bank to expand its gas support while climate campaigners are pushing for it to end – its head spoke this week of limited backing for the fossil fuel -
Who shapes climate science? The equity question facing the IPCC
Early completion of the next global climate science assessment reports risks excluding research from the Global South, which is key to ensuring the findings are fair
The US and Iran are not signed up to the Paris Agreement and so do not have active NDCs, nor does Taiwan, which is not a UN member state.
Rao said that because the PAICC is “facilitative and non-punitive”, naming the countries “is meant to open a door, not close one – the invited consultation is the point”.
“In recent months, governments that explained their constraints, whether capacity, finance or domestic process, have been met with follow-up and support rather than sanction, and the number of silent governments has fallen sharply,” Rao said.
The post Paris Agreement committee names three countries snubbing it over NDCs appeared first on Climate Home News.
Paris Agreement committee names three countries snubbing it over NDCs
Countries have failed – for the sixth time running – to agree on the timeline for publishing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) next set of influential reports.
The IPCC’s 65th session (IPCC-65) was seen by many to be the final opportunity for countries to agree on a schedule where its seventh assessment report (AR7) would be published in time for the UN’s second “global stocktake” of climate action.
Before last week’s meeting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, IPCC chair Prof Sir Jim Skea had warned that releasing the reports in time for the stocktake in 2028 would depend on a timelines being agreed by the end of 2026.
But the week-long meeting descended into fraught disagreements between governments, resulting in Skea “suspending” the talks on Friday evening with no decision made.
Countries were also unable to agree on the IPCC’s budget for the rest of the AR7 cycle, leaving the body with a “serious funding crisis”.
The IPCC has pledged to reconvene the meeting at the “earliest opportunity”; however, it has not yet given an indication of when this will be.
In his concluding remarks, Skea described the Addis Ababa summit as a “profound disappointment” and “among the most difficult IPCC meetings”, according to reporting from the Earth Negotiations Bulletin