Editing IPCC:AR6/WGII/Chapter-7 (section)

==== 7.4.5.2 Adaptation in Fragile Settings ====

<div id="h3-62-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

''Climate-resilient peacebuilding has the potential to limit the impact of future climate change on peace efforts'' ( ''medium confidence'' ) ''.'' Practical guidance has been developed, driven by policy concerns on climate–conflict links. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the European Union and Adelphi have developed a toolkit for addressing climate fragility risks in peacebuilding, adaptation and livelihoods support (UNEP et al., 2019). [[#Crawford--2015|Crawford et al. (2015)]] provide recommendations for climate-resilient peacebuilding consistent with the UN Secretary General’s five peacebuilding principles, including integrating ex-combatants through the construction of climate-resilient infrastructure, using climate impacts as a platform to engage previously conflicting groups, developing national DRR and management strategies, and climate-proofing economic development activities. The USAID, in a report prepared for the Adaptation Thought Leadership and Assessments (ATLAS) programme (Adelphi &amp; Chemonics International, 2020) that drew upon resilience and peacebuilding programmes in the Horn of Africa, recommend two critical conditions to ensure activities address compound climate fragility risks. Firstly, conducting local analyses of the links between climate, conflict and fragility to identify specific risks to target and, secondly, ensuring long-term commitment with a focus on participation and flexibility.

''Conflict-sensitive adaptation that focuses on institutional frameworks, conflict management and governance mechanisms has the potential to address complex interacting risks and emergencies over the long term'' ( ''medium agreement, limited evidence'' ) ''( [[#Scheffran--2012|Scheffran et al., 2012]] ; [[#Matthew--2018|Matthew, 2018]] ; [[#Okpara--2018|Okpara et al., 2018]] )'' . However, most adaptation activities are planned and implemented under development or climate finance funds without systematic integration of conflict sensitivity, and National Adaptation strategies rarely and only implicitly address conflict and potential changes to power relations ( [[#Tänzler--2019|Tänzler et al., 2019]] ). Practitioners and policy researchers have attempted to address this gap by developing guidance and delivering training (e.g., Tänzler et al. (2019); [[#Bob--2014|Bob and Bronkhorst (2014)]] ). However, there are real challenges relating to discounting indirect impacts on conflict and maladaptation ( [[#Asplund--2020|Asplund and Hjerpe, 2020]] ) and risks of unintended outcomes ( [[#Mirumachi--2020|Mirumachi et al., 2020]] ). [[#Crawford--2020|Crawford and Church (2020)]] highlight the synergies between adaptation planning under the UNFCCC’s National Adaptation Plan process and conflict reduction. Discussing development more broadly, [[#Abrahams--2020|Abrahams (2020)]] suggests three barriers to development that incorporate conflict–climate risks: geographically disconnected impacts and outcomes, the discourse of climate as a threat multiplier (rather than underlying peace) and teleconnected risks occurring at different scales. Effective approaches rely on understanding local power dynamics and social relations (Sovacool 2018; Roth et al. 2019; Sapiains et al. 2021) ( ''high agreement, medium evidence'' ).

<div id="7.4.5.3 " class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="gender-based-approaches-to-peacebuilding"></span>