This infographic shows the countries that receive funding from the United Nations Peacebuilding Fund (PBF) and their vulnerability score to climate change. In countries affected by conflict and fragility, climated-related risks can create negative feedback loops. Climate change increases conflict risks and makes peacebuilding more challenging, and the resulting fragility and conflict further increases the vulnerability of societies to climate change.
The theme for the 2020 Stockholm Forum is "Sustaining Peace in the Time of COVID-19". With this theme, the Forum recognizes the challenges that the COVID-19 pandemic has presented. In an interdependent world, national responses to global challenges cannot be conducted in isolation. From climate change, to food insecurity and pandemics, collective global action must be the solution. This is particularly true in conflict situations and fragile states.
Paris and Berlin have added their names to a growing list of EU capitals asking for the European Green Deal to be placed at the heart of the EU’s post-pandemic recovery plan.
For the first time in the survey’s 10-year outlook, the top five global risks in terms of likelihood are all environmental. They are: extreme weather events, failure of climate change mitigation and adaptation, major natural disasters, major biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse, and human-made environmental damage and disasters.
Evidence from existing programs shows that climate change adaptation interventions can contribute to peacebuilding, and peacebuilding can have significant adaptation benefits.
The Climate Investment Funds (CIF) trust fund committees and sub-committees meet regularly to make consensus-based decisions that ensure CIF funding flows, activities progress, and learning is shared. The next meeting, scheduled to take place on March 24-25, 2020, is now postponed.
The Climate Investment Funds (CIF) trust fund committees and sub-committees meet regularly to make consensus-based decisions that ensure CIF funding flows, activities progress, and learning is shared. The next meeting is scheduled to take place in Washington, D.C. in December 14-18, 2020.
Environmental peacebuilding is a good idea. As a practice, it aims to address simultaneously environmental problems and challenges related to violent conflict. Examples include the promotion of environmental cooperation between rival states, conflict-sensitive adaptation to climate change, and restoring access to land and water in post-conflict societies. However, environmental peacebuilding can negatively affect development, chip away at environmental protection, and erode peace. In new study, Tobias Ide highlights six different aspects of the dark side of environmental peacebuilding.
The UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) will convene the 2020 session of the HLPF from Tuesday, 7 July, to Thursday, 16 July 2020. Following the first five-days, the HLPF's three-day ministerial segment takes place jointly with ECOSOC's high-level segment from Tuesday-Thursday, 14-16 July 2020. The ECOSOC high-level segment concludes on 17 July 2020.
The Brown to Green Report 2019 is the world’s most comprehensive review of G20 climate action. It provides concise and comparable information on G20 country mitigation action, finance and adaptation.
Climate change is increasingly challenging global security and undermining peacebuilding efforts. UN Environment and the European Union have joined forces to address these challenges. With the support of adelphi, they have developed a toolkit on ‘Addressing climate-fragility risks’. This toolkit facilitates the development and implementation of strategies, policies, and projects that seek to build resilience by linking climate change adaptation, peacebuilding, and sustainable livelihoods, focusing on the pilot countries Sudan and Nepal.
The Kingdom of the Netherlands has contributed $28 million to back FAO's work to boost the resilience of food systems in Somalia, Sudan, and South Sudan - part of a new initiative to scale-up resilience-based development work in countries affected by protracted crises.
Ten years after committing to rationalise and phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies, G20 countries still subsidise coal, oil and gas to the tune of around USD 150 billion annually. The process to try to move the G20 forward on this issue has been via peer review of fossil fuel subsidies, but these reviews need to be followed by action. Subsidy reforms could free up resources that could be channeled back into government programmes, which would be necessary to mitigate the impacts of rising energy prices on vulnerable populations and to help smooth reforms, and could also be spent on accelerating a clean energy transition.