Search Climate Insights Directory

The report analyzes the ramifications of the EU's January 2016 decision to reduce AMISOM peacekeeper allowances by 20%, from US$1,028 to US$822 per month. This move triggered a rift between the African Union (AU), troop-contributing countries (TCCs), and donors, while accelerating the development of a concrete exit strategy for the mission. The EU's decision was driven by donor fatigue, shifting priorities toward the Sahel region, and internal regulations regarding the use of the African Peace Facility. TCCs, particularly Uganda and Kenya, initially threatened withdrawal, though national security interests and the desire for regional stability largely prevailed. The report highlights a critical gap between donor expectations for AMISOM to 'do more' against al-Shabaab and the TCCs' claims of severe under-resourcing and a lack of local Somali security capacity to hold liberated territory.

The author contends that climate change acts as a 'threat multiplier' that exacerbates global instability, migration, and conflict, yet remains absent from public debate. The text proposes that the EU shift toward a 'geographic climate security policy'—modeled on UNEP's analysis of the Sahel—which assesses how climate factors intersect with political and security risks in specific territories. To implement this, the Greens suggest creating an EU Special Representative on Climate Security, mainstreaming climate security across all external policy funds, and reducing European dependency on fossil fuel imports from autocratic states to limit their ability to finance aggression.

The document examines the multifaceted nature of security in Europe, contrasting the 'politics of fear' used by national populists with a progressive vision of security. It analyzes threats ranging from terrorism and digital vulnerabilities to energy insecurity and climate change, while emphasizing that social investment and the protection of civil liberties are more effective tools for stability than mass surveillance or militarisation. The text specifically critiques the 'securitisation' of migration and the role of the state in managing perceived risks.

The author contends that traditional attempts to control water through artificial solutions have created vulnerabilities that are now being exposed by a changing climate. The document advocates for a 'resilience mindset' in water management, particularly within humanitarian and development funding, moving away from short-term recovery toward long-term capacity for communities to thrive despite recurrent water challenges. This approach emphasizes the use of predictive models, early warning systems, and the integration of indigenous knowledge. To implement this, the Global Resilience Partnership (GRP) has focused on the Sahel, Horn of Africa, and South and Southeast Asia, and has launched a Water Window Challenge with a $10 million commitment from the Z Zurich Foundation to fund innovative flood-resilience solutions.

The document examines youth radicalisation in Africa as a complex phenomenon driven by a combination of 'push' and 'pull' factors. It argues that while religious ideology is often used as a justification, the actual drivers are frequently rooted in political repression, systemic corruption, socio-economic exclusion, and weakened family structures. The paper emphasizes that responses must be nuanced and evidence-based, moving beyond a 'one size fits all' approach to address specific local and structural vulnerabilities.

The document examines climate information services in BRACED countries, noting that while access is increasing, end-users struggle with data quality, inappropriate spatial scales, and poor communication. It details regional weather drivers like the ITCZ in Africa and the monsoon in Asia, and argues for a service-oriented approach that integrates localized, two-way communication into resilience programming to improve decision-making at the community level.

The report argues that climate change acts as a "threat multiplier" in fragile states, exacerbating existing conflict drivers like poverty and weak governance. It proposes a framework for "climate-resilient peacebuilding" based on six principles, including integrated context analysis and a forward-looking approach to planning. The document identifies specific entry points for integration across five peacebuilding dimensions: basic safety and security, political processes, basic services, government functions, and economic revitalization. It also reviews existing international guidance, noting that while some tools integrate climate risks, many others lack this perspective, suggesting that practitioners should integrate climate resilience into existing resources rather than creating new toolkits.

The document examines the diverse range of 'Sahel strategies' produced by multilateral actors, noting a general consensus on objectives—security, development, governance, and education—but significant variations in geographical scope and implementation capacity. It highlights that while some organisations possess substantial internal funding, others rely on external contributions, creating a risk that more powerful actors may dominate the region. The brief emphasizes the need for detailed action plans and transparent monitoring and evaluation mechanisms to avoid redundancy and ensure that interventions meet the needs of populations in core countries like Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania, and Niger.

The document asserts that climate change is a major human rights challenge, threatening rights to life, health, and food security, particularly for vulnerable groups. It criticizes the UNFCCC for slow progress in operationalizing rights protections and recommends that the 2015 climate agreement include explicit human rights obligations, establish institutional safeguards, create a dedicated work programme on human rights and climate change, and implement a grievance mechanism to address harms caused by mitigation and adaptation activities.

The document positions climate change as a major human rights challenge, noting that environmental degradation threatens fundamental rights such as life, health, and food security. It criticizes the UNFCCC for failing to operationalize human rights protections despite recognizing them in 2010. The authors propose a human-rights-based approach to climate action, emphasizing the need to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, provide compensation for loss and damage, and establish institutional safeguards, including a formal complaints mechanism and a dedicated work program on human rights and climate change.

The report advocates for the scaling of regreening, specifically farmer-managed natural regeneration (FMNR), as a low-cost solution to food insecurity and climate change in drylands. It details a six-step strategy: identifying successes, building grassroots movements, addressing policy barriers, implementing communication strategies, strengthening value chains, and expanding research. Using examples from Niger, Mali, Burkina Faso, and Senegal, the authors argue that FMNR is more cost-effective and has higher survival rates than conventional tree planting.

The document examines the restoration of 5 million hectares in southern Niger through farmer-managed natural regeneration (FMNR), a locally driven agroforestry practice. It details how FMNR improved food security, household income, and climate resilience while sequestering 25 million tons of carbon. The study identifies key success factors, including the 1989 Rural Code which secured land and tree tenure for farmers, and the role of peer-to-peer knowledge sharing and international funding from USAID and IFAD.

The report establishes a framework for assessing the positive societal impacts of crisis management (CM) tools, specifically for the DRIVER project. It defines societal resilience as a multi-dimensional concept encompassing technical, political, psychological, and value-based dimensions. By reviewing 23 policy documents from the UN, EU, and IFRC, the report identifies core societal values—such as trust, solidarity, and participation—that should guide CM interventions. It proposes a consolidated list of assessment criteria (e.g., accountability, diversity, and transparency) to ensure CM tools foster rather than infringe upon societal values. The document concludes with general recommendations for positive intervention, emphasizing people-centered, bottom-up approaches and the importance of international cooperation and legal frameworks in building resilience.

The document outlines the critical role of rural women in economic growth and food security while highlighting the systemic barriers they face, including gender-based violence, lack of land rights, and limited access to education and technology. It argues that empowering rural women through legal reforms, capacity building, and strategic networking is essential for sustainable development and climate adaptation.

The study finds that soil and water conservation (SWC) and small reservoir expansion increased significantly in northern Burkina Faso, particularly in regions receiving 700 mm of rainfall or less. While regional cereal yields rose by approximately 3% per year, and rice productivity showed a strong correlation with reservoir expansion, the causal links to poverty reduction and food security are less clear due to data limitations. The report suggests that AWM adoption is one of many factors contributing to livelihood improvements and requires further long-term analysis to establish definitive causality.

The policy brief examines the critical role of dryland forests in Africa, which cover 61% of the continent and support 60% of its population. It argues that these ecosystems are chronically undervalued in national economic planning and suffer from a history of centralized management that alienated rural communities. The author contends that sustainable management requires devolving rights and responsibilities to the local level, legally entrenching community tenure, and investing in the real economic value of non-timber forest products to ensure conservation is more profitable than degradation.

The document identifies significant barriers to integrating climate science into African policy-making, including systematic biases in climate models, a decline in observational data networks, and a lack of technical capacity to interpret data. It emphasizes that current climate information is often too coarse in resolution for local decision-making and is poorly communicated to policy-makers. To address these gaps, the authors recommend promoting African-led science, improving the translation of research into non-technical formats, and engaging influential finance and development ministries rather than relying solely on environment ministries.

The document establishes a framework for exploring how climate risk and vulnerability information can be effectively gathered and shared. It emphasizes that the mere existence of data is insufficient; information must be translated into usable formats and distributed through systems that connect national and local levels. The briefing identifies the need for long-term political will, community buy-in, and innovative distribution methods—such as cell phone text messages for rural areas—to ensure that data reaches the most vulnerable populations and decision-makers.

The document examines the 'balancing act' required by national decision makers to address current socio-economic challenges while preparing for future climate impacts. It highlights that waiting for certainty before acting may lead to missed opportunities for risk management, especially in vulnerable nations where long-term climate risks threaten the achievement of development goals. The text provides illustrative dilemmas, such as managing sea level rise in coastal areas and rainfall uncertainty in the Sahel, to prompt further discussion on interventions, economic incentives, and public engagement strategies for long-term planning.

The report argues that climate change acts as a 'threat multiplier' in Africa, exacerbating existing vulnerabilities such as poverty and poor governance to potentially trigger violent conflict. It identifies four primary areas of concern: increased water scarcity, decreased food security, large-scale climate-induced migration, and the erosion of state fragility. While acknowledging that environmental stress is rarely the sole cause of war, the document highlights how shifts in precipitation and temperature can intensify competition over resources and destabilize fragile states. The authors propose four strategies to mitigate these risks: improving climate projections, reducing global greenhouse gas emissions, implementing conflict-sensitive adaptation policies, and integrating climate risks into all levels of governance.