Thanks for starting this conversation! Some initial thoughts:

• There’s not a lot of space (and financial support) to try and test innovative approaches across “silos” (that could be scaled up if successful). We have seen people on the ground come up with very creative solutions to tackle climate-related conflict, but they often lack the resources to experiment with new approaches.
• The focus is often on how climate change and environmental degradation exacerbate existing conflict, which is of course important to understand. But climate can also be a unifying factor that “forces” people to collaborate and find solutions to shared problems. So I would recommend supporting approaches that focus on the opportunities this presents.
• Support integrated analyses of both conflict and climate/environmental data: This will allow a broad scope of actors (development, climate, peacebuilding, humanitarian) to develop more effective programming.

Very nice information thanks marion

Some ideas:

• Climate finance is not reaching the most at need in a conflict-sensitive manner. According to a Mercy Corps report, the majority of the most climate-vulnerable countries received less than 20 dollars per person, per year in climate change adaptation financing from 2010-2017.
• Local expertise on climate and conflict & natural resource management is not included into international policies and approaches to conflict.
• Inclusive approaches should be adopted when handling the climate-conflict nexus, especially in fragile and conflict affected settings. Women and youth are most vulnerable to the impacts of climate stressors, although they contribute the least to climate change.