Takeaways from the discussion include:
- Ensuring that all funds, including the new Loss and Damage Fund, have a dedicated policy or specific guidance on conflict sensitive planning, programming and impact evaluation.
- Sectoral risk analysis and guidance to help funds better understand and manage risk, which may in turn help increase risk appetite and tolerance to work in fragile contexts. This needs to go hand in hand with strong incentives (see below).
- Creating incentives for climate action at the level of climate funds to pursue the reinforcing co-benefits of climate and peacebuilding objectives. These could be drawn from the strong call on a prevention agenda in the UN Secretary General’s New Agenda for Peace.
- Establishing small grant facilities with a tranche modality of financing based on project risk categorisation (based on the PBF model) to manage risk and allow flexibility in fragile contexts.
- Harmonising requirements and procedures such as social and environmental safeguards across the four key vertical funds, and/or even informally amongst likeminded donors to reduce the burden of accessing climate funding for fragile states. This could be a low-cost option for donors contributing to a concrete package of solutions.
- As a hub for sharing projects and experiences, the Climate for Peace initiative could help build up a pipeline of projects which advance both climate and peacebuilding goals. This pipeline could be used by donors interested in supporting climate security programming and allow for better streamlining of efforts and cooperation across funds and donors.