By Noah Fritzhand, Amineh Najam-ud-din and Kamsi Obiorah

Introduction

On 16 October, the Center for Climate and Security (CCS), International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Mercy Corps, and the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) convened key stakeholders for a roundtable discussion on Progressing Efforts on the Declaration on Climate, Relief, Recovery, and Peace (RRP Declaration). Signed into existence at COP28 by some 90 states, including the United States, and 40 international partners, this landmark declaration calls for bold and collective action to build climate resilience at the scale and speed necessary to support highly vulnerable communities, including those threatened by fragility or conflict, or facing severe humanitarian needs.

Nearly one year after the signing, this discussion brought together humanitarian, development, climate, and US officials from various agencies to assess progress on these commitments, share concrete examples of efforts that have or have not been successful, and discuss lessons learned. The roundtable was held under Chatham House Rule, and the list of guiding questions can be found in Annex 1 of this summary. 

Key Takeaways

Below are the key takeaways from the discussion: 

Urgent Need for Accountability Frameworks

Despite the commitments made in the COP 28 declaration, it did not establish a time-bound framework for accountability. Without clear mechanisms to monitor progress and enforce commitments, there is no guarantee the promises made via the declaration will translate into tangible actions. This is especially true regarding climate finance, where only a fraction reaches the most vulnerable countries, including those affected by conflict. 

• Participants acknowledged that the RRP Declaration is a significant step forward in terms of addressing the intersection of conflict and climate change, however, as one participant put it, the “do” of the declaration is unclear, with no real time-bound framework for accountability.

• The group discussed the appetite to explore a robust framework for implementing the RRP. Some participants proposed a 2.0 version of the declaration that includes more detail, timelines, and key implementation milestones.

• Participants noted that more pressure will need to be applied to government, civil society organizations (CSOs), the private sector, multilateral development banks, and other actors to find a way to build resilience in contexts affected by climate shocks and conflict. 

• Implementing the RRP Declaration will also require a whole-of-government approach, including collaboration between the humanitarian, development, and climate communities. 

The Complexity of Multilateral Funding Mechanisms

The fragmentation of major climate funding institutions complicates access for countries and communities most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and conflict. There is a pressing need to streamline processes and clarify the criteria for concessional finance, ensuring that funding reaches those who need it most without excessive bureaucratic barriers.

• Participants also highlighted that concessional climate finance is not one-size-fits all. For example, projects that fund the installation of solar are not the same as concessional finance to build climate resilience. Both types of projects serve to achieve different goals in the path to climate security and funding needs differ across countries. 

• The new collective quantified goal or NCQG at the upcoming COP 29 was a point of conversation, with participants stressing that the new number will send a signal for what climate financial ambition could look like in the coming years. 

• Another conversation centered around thinking about ways to grow the pot of climate finance. Ideas included taxes on fossil fuel companies and using topics such as water (security, infrastructure, etc.) to bring different funders together on a shared project.

Financing Challenges and the Role of Local Actors

The stark disparity in climate finance allocation—highlighted by the fact that in 2021, only 1% of international adaptation funds reached the top 10 most fragile countries—underscores the need for more equitable financial mechanisms. Discussions emphasized the importance of engaging local private sectors and communities in climate resilience efforts, as they are essential to effectively implement solutions tailored to specific regional needs.

• Participants discussed incentives for multilateral development banks (MDBs) and the private sector to invest in global climate financing goals. Questions arose about how to sustainably incentivize financial institutions that are competing with one another. The topic requires more conversation. 

• There was some skepticism amongst participants that the private sector will be a reliable source of funding in fragile and conflict-affected situations (FCAS) as market signals and risk appetite do not encourage them to invest—making institutional funding and new sources of finance all the more critical.

• The importance of having clear examples of success in getting climate finance for adaptation efforts to conflict-affected areas was highlighted, and some participants built on this by emphasizing that this is happening, though often at a small scale. 

• Participants highlighted the importance and success of several key climate adaptation initiatives directing financing to local actors but contrasted these examples with the difficulty of convincing philanthropies and MDBs to match/collaborate on these projects.

• Other participants noted the challenges of financing projects, outside of rapid humanitarian aid, in fragile and conflict-affected areas due to sanctions.

Conclusion

This event highlighted the importance of bringing together policymakers and practitioners across the humanitarian, environmental, development, and security sectors to jointly address the compounding risks of climate change.

As COP29 begins, the successes of the landmark RRP Declaration need to be evaluated alongside their shortcomings. Participants stressed that in the absence of a multi-sectoral, time-bound accountability framework, RRP commitments may fall by the wayside, putting vulnerable populations at even more risk. Additionally, participants suggested that accountability measures must also ensure that local actors receive funding without bureaucratic obstacles. Lastly, participants emphasized that local actors must be included in the climate adaptation process. 

As a signatory of the RRP Declaration, the United States can play a leadership role in implementing the bold actions outlined in the declaration. The challenge now becomes demonstrating to policymakers that addressing climate security challenges collectively and proactively will benefit the issues they care about.

ANNEX 1: SUGGESTED QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION

• How can we use the Relief, Recovery, and Peace (RRP) declaration and other tools to advance the goals of climate resilience in fragility, conflict, and violence (FCV) settings?

• What concrete actions can be taken by the USG and other organizations to deliver on their RRP commitments?

• How can we better work together to address some of the constraints that exist in places affected by conflict and fragility, and the domestic constraints that impact implementing adaptation-focused policies and programming?

• What lessons can be learned from climate adaptation activities that have(n’t) been successful in conflict settings?

• What forward-looking priorities are the US government and implementers looking toward?