Conflict considerations in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change's National Adaptation Plans
Elise Remling,Karen Meijer,Elise RemlingKaren Meijera Centre for Environmental Governance (CEG),University of Canberra,Canberra,Australiab Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI),Stockholm,SwedenDr Elise Remling is a Research Fellow at the University of Canberra's Centre for Environmental Governance (CEG) in Australia,where she works on the social and political implications of climate and environmental change. She is also an Associate Researcher with the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute's (SIPRI) Climate Change and Risk Programme.Dr Karen Meijer is a Senior Researcher within the Climate Change and Risk Programme at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI),specializing in international cooperation and development. Her primary interests include effectiveness of governance and international finance targeting sustainable and equitable use of natural resources.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2024.2321156
2024-02-27
Climate and Development
Abstract:Many places affected by violent conflict are also those with the lowest capacity to respond to the impacts of climate change and, therefore, some the most vulnerable. Consequently, it is here where climate change most likely results in social tensions that could escalate into or sustain conflicts. This double burden of compounding conflict and climate risks suggests an urgent need for climate adaptation interventions. However, so far adaptation agendas are often poorly aligned with those reducing conflict risk. Seeking to overcome this gap, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) National Adaptation Plan (NAP) process has been highlighted as an important opportunity to align adaptation and peacebuilding agendas. Based on qualitative analysis of the ten least peaceful countries' NAPs (submitted by November 2022), and developing a novel analytical framework on climate, conflict and adaptation interactions, the paper examines whether and to what extent countries bring conflict considerations into their NAPs, and account for interactions between climate change, conflict and adaptation. Findings suggest that by and large, conflict considerations are not systematically brought into adaptation planning – an omission that might ultimately prove irresponsible, highly costly and dangerous. The paper concludes with recommendations that countries faced by the double-burden of climate change and fragility, and international actors supporting them in their NAP process, could employ.
environmental studies,development studies