Integrating Climate Security into the Future of UN Peacekeeping in Africa

Explicit mentions of climate security have been removed or weakened in recent UN mandates. For example, in Somalia’s recent UN transition mission mandate, signaling a possible deprioritization of long-term resilience-building measures.

This trend may compromise efforts to address root causes of conflict, leaving missions ill-prepared to handle future conflicts triggered by climate change. We highlighted this concern in our paper, Glimpsing Tomorrow: Positioning the Climate, Peace and Security Agenda in the Future of UN Peacekeeping Missions in Africa, presented at the Third Annual Conference of the Climate Security Association of Canada (Montreal, May 5–6, 2025). Our analysis explored how the pragmatization of UN peacekeeping missions has impacted the visibility of climate security language in mandate texts.

The Pragmatic Turn in UN Peacekeeping

In response to evolving geopolitical, financial, and operational dynamics, UN peacekeeping missions have adopted a more pragmatic approach. Driven by donor fatigue, geopolitical gridlock, and host-state resistance, these missions increasingly prioritize immediate stability, civilian protection, and focused mandates over long-term transformative goals. This pragmatic turn has undeniably brought operational clarity but raises concerns about whether critical long-term threats, particularly those posed by climate change, might be sidelined.

Nevertheless, certain missions provide promising models for successfully integrating climate security into peacekeeping frameworks. The UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS), for instance, exemplifies effective integration through three key pathways: mandate inclusion, community-level interventions, and leveraging strategic partnerships.

UNMISS has systematically embedded climate risk assessments into strategic planning and reporting, constructed critical flood protection infrastructure, and facilitated local dialogues to manage seasonal cattle migrations—thereby reducing conflict potential. These initiatives underscore climate security’s tangible contributions to immediate peace and stability.

Climate Security as a Catalyst for Multilateral Cooperation

Integrating climate security also presents significant opportunities for multilateral cooperation. Climate threats transcend borders and demand collective, coordinated responses. By embedding climate security into peacekeeping, the UN can foster stronger partnerships among peacekeepers, humanitarian actors, and development organizations, broadening the coalition supporting peace missions. Such integrated approaches not only strengthen immediate security outcomes but also bolster the legitimacy and relevance of peacekeeping missions within broader international efforts.

To remain effective and relevant, climate security efforts within peacekeeping contexts must pragmatically align with mission timelines and operational constraints. This means prioritizing clear, actionable initiatives focused on immediate and medium-term risks such as resource scarcity, food insecurity, disaster response, and displacement management—challenges directly amplified by climate pressures.

Ultimately, the future resilience of peacekeeping missions will depend on how effectively they incorporate climate security. By strategically adapting climate security to align with pragmatic operational frameworks, UN missions can significantly enhance their capacity to mitigate conflict risks and build sustainable peace in increasingly climate-stressed regions.

Comparative Cases in Climate Security Integration

The UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) represents a positive case of integrating climate security effectively into peacekeeping operations. UNMISS explicitly includes climate-related language in its mandate, underscoring the connection between environmental factors and conflict dynamics. Practical actions such as building flood protection infrastructure, initiating climate-informed risk assessments, and managing resource-driven conflicts at the community level have directly contributed to reducing tensions and promoting peace.

In contrast, the UN Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA) illustrates the limitations and challenges when climate security integration is minimal or secondary to other urgent operational priorities. MINUSMA’s mandate primarily emphasizes counter-terrorism and immediate security stabilization, overshadowing long-term climate-driven vulnerabilities such as drought-induced resource scarcity, land degradation, and intercommunal violence, particularly involving pastoralist communities. The absence of comprehensive climate security measures has arguably worsened existing tensions, highlighting the critical importance of proactively addressing environmental risks even within security-intensive mandates.

The divergent experiences of UNMISS and MINUSMA emphasize several important lessons. First, effective integration of climate security requires explicit, sustained attention within mission mandates. Second, strategic partnerships and community engagement are critical for successful climate security outcomes. Finally, the operational constraints of immediate security needs should not preclude addressing long-term drivers of conflict; instead, peacekeeping missions must balance both short-term and long-term priorities to enhance overall mission effectiveness and resilience.

Funding and Collaboration Opportunities

Addressing climate-security risks within peacekeeping missions also opens nuanced opportunities for funding and collaboration. Climate financing mechanisms, such as the Green Climate Fund and the Adaptation Fund, could be strategically leveraged if explicitly adapted to the peace-security context, recognizing that peacekeeping missions are traditionally outside their typical funding scopes. Tailoring funding proposals to highlight clear climate-security linkages and measurable impacts on conflict prevention could improve access to these resources.

However, several challenges complicate funding access. These include stringent eligibility criteria that typically focus on environmental and development outcomes rather than peace and security contexts, bureaucratic complexities, and the perception among traditional climate funders that peacekeeping initiatives might not yield clear climate benefits. Overcoming these barriers requires active advocacy, demonstrating clear, measurable intersections between climate resilience and conflict prevention.

Additionally, peacekeeping missions could benefit from exploring innovative funding partnerships with bilateral donors already active in climate resilience, such as Germany, Norway, and the United Kingdom. Collaborative frameworks that explicitly tie climate adaptation to peacebuilding outcomes would also attract development and humanitarian agencies, creating synergies across different funding streams and operational expertise.

Author: Sara Rabie, Alliance of Bioversity & CIAT