Peace-positive climate finance in the MENA region: Insights from the first GCF MENA Regional Dialogue

Climate finance in the MENA region 

The MENA region is experiencing accelerated climate change impacts, with temperatures rising at nearly twice the global average. This rapid warming intensifies water scarcity and the agricultural sector, which consumes approximately 85% of the region’s water. Food insecurity also remains a critical concern, with the region relying on imports for 30-35% of its food supply. These climate-related pressures amplify existing vulnerabilities, especially in fragile and conflict-affected settings (FCAS) across the region. Recognizing these complex challenges, international frameworks such as the Paris Agreement, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, and the COP28 Declaration on Climate, Relief, Recovery, & Peace emphasize the urgent need for increased financial resources and collective action towards the most vulnerable and fragile, so that no one is left behind. 

Despite the pressing adaptation needs, the MENA region remains underfunded. The region has attracted only USD 1.81 billion in multilateral climate finance, representing approximately 7.1 percent of total approved funding from the Green Climate Fund (GCF), Global Environment Facility (GEF), and Adaptation Fund (AF). As shown in Figure 1, the approved funding per year has remained stationary, whereas it has increased significantly in other regions. Since 2016, the GCF has become the primary source of multilateral finance for the region. Notably, the total financing across all funds is concentrated heavily in a few countries, leaving many with minimal support. 

Figure 1. Approved Funding to MENA by GCF, GEF, AF

The countries that have benefitted the most from multilateral vertical funds are Tunisia, Jordan, and Morocco. Conversely, Sudan, Libya, Lebanon, Palestine, Yemen, and Somalia are notably underfunded. While the Gulf states have received almost no funds, they generally do not seek multilateral funding. The disparity in per capita finance highlights significant inequities and potential bottlenecks in fund allocation.

Figure 2. Approved Funding to MENA by GCF

Looking at the GCF project pipeline (Figure 2), we also note a greater focus on mitigation (35.2%, $0.33bn) over adaptation (17.4%, $0.16bn) and a significant preference for private sector (60%, $0.56bn) over public sector (40%, $0.37bn) financing. This trend may not align well with the region’s urgent need for adaptation measures, especially considering the high vulnerability to climate impacts. Likewise, it might not reflect the needs of FCAS, which have been openly requesting grant-based funding to address their adaptation gaps. Finally, we see that no peacebuilding organizations are active as Accredited Entities in the region, with international banks and UN organizations leading project implementations. This lack of engagement from peacebuilding entities could hinder the integration of climate adaptation and resilience efforts in conflict-affected settings.

Where GCF Funds and Conflict Meet

An analysis of GCF allocated funds and conflict levels shows that fragile and conflict-affected countries, as classified by ACLED, receive significantly less funding per capita (2.05 USD) compared to stable countries (5.05 USD). It is, however, interesting to note countries with extreme levels of conflict have received 2.15 USD per capita, while countries with high conflict levels 1.88 USD, and countries classified as turbulent have received 0.81 USD. This is explainable by the relatively higher funding of Palestine, Sudan, and Somalia, while other conflict affected countries like Syria, Libya, Iraq, and Yemen have virtually no allocated funds. Following the recent announcements of a $100 million investment partnership with the GCF for Somalia and the COP28 Declaration on Climate, Relief, Recovery, & Peace, we expect these numbers to rise in the coming years.

Figure 3. Approved Funding to MENA by GCF overlaid with ACLED Conflict Index

In light of the highlighted trends and funding allocations, it is also important to question whether funded projects are suitable for the region and meet countries’ needs – that is, whether they are conflict sensitive and peace positive. Data from a recent portfolio review on GCF conflict sensitivity published by the CGIAR Focus Climate Security highlights that while conflict is discussed in 21 funded activities (45% of the total), peace is mentioned in only 8, and resource competition in 9. The most common beneficiaries discussed in relation to security are women and girls, low-income communities, and smallholder farmers. Notably, only a minority of projects discuss security from a risk perspective, and none feature ad-hoc conflict assessments, though 2 out of 10 reference conflict management resolution mechanisms.

Figure 4. GCF Projects in MENA region referencing conflict and security themes

In summary, increasing allocations to fragile and conflict-affected states in MENA is essential, but it is equally crucial that these projects are conflict-sensitive and contribute to peacebuilding. Climate impacts are deeply interconnected with social, economic, and political factors, necessitating context-specific, integrated solutions. Conflict-sensitive climate interventions should be designed to address underlying vulnerabilities and promote stability, serving as entry points for fostering peace and resilience in the region. Such interventions can help mitigate resource competition, enhance community cohesion, and build adaptive capacities, ultimately leading to more sustainable and equitable outcomes. Ensuring that climate finance incorporates peacebuilding components can transform the region’s approach to climate adaptation and mitigation, making it more effective and inclusive.

CGIAR Workshop on Conflict Sensitivity

As an accredited entity at the GCF with various projects in its pipeline, CGIAR has been at the forefront of exploring the intersections of climate security and finance. Our work includes the aforementioned portfolio review on GCF conflict sensitivity plus eight sectorial guidance notes for peace-informed GCF programming, the Climate Security Investment Planning Methodology, and the Climate Security Programming Dashboard for Climate Finance. The latter, launched at COP28, serves as a preliminary conflict-sensitive assessment and tailored guidance tool for project preparation. 

On June 26, 2024, the Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT conducted a workshop titled “Peace Positive Programming in GCF Projects for MENA” during the GCF Regional Dialogue held in Rabat, Morocco. This event was organized as a component of the structured dialogue aimed at enhancing climate adaptation and cross-cutting projects within the MENA region. The workshop focused on integrating conflict sensitivity into the GCF project cycle, emphasizing the importance of peace-positive programming. Participants, including National Designated Authorities (NDAs), Accredited Entities (AEs), Delivery Partners (DPs), and other GCF stakeholders, engaged in intensive discussions and activities designed to promote the incorporation of peace-building elements into climate projects. Key topics included identifying potential conflict triggers within climate initiatives, developing strategies to mitigate these risks, and ensuring that projects contribute positively to peace and stability in fragile and conflict-affected areas. 

Some of the main takeaways from the workshop were that funded activities in the MENA region need to: 

1. Conduct a conflict assessment specific to the project location to understand local peace and conflict dynamics, considering factors such as sectarian divides, tribal affiliations, and historical grievances. 
2. Prepare for potential disruptions due to local conflicts or challenges, such as political instability, social unrest, or violent extremism, to maintain a stable project environment. 
3. Align the project with local power dynamics, including tribal leaders, religious authorities, and political factions, to ensure it contributes positively to peace and stability in the MENA region. 
4. Consider how the project might influence local peace and stability by assessing its impact on resource allocation, social equity, and community relations, to prevent unintended consequences. 
5. Develop a conflict-sensitive exit strategy that includes capacity building for local institutions and community leaders, ensuring long-term sustainability and a positive legacy. 
6. Seek expert advice from regional specialists and peacebuilding organizations to enhance the peace co-benefits of your project and identify innovative approaches tailored to the unique challenges of the MENA region. 

In conclusion, addressing the climate challenges in the MENA region requires a localized approach that integrates climate adaptation and mitigation with context-specific peacebuilding efforts. The current allocation of the main multilateral climate funds highlights a few remaining gaps and inequities, particularly affecting the most vulnerable populations in fragile and conflict-affected settings. By increasing financial allocations and ensuring projects are conflict-sensitive and peace-positive, we can better support these populations and contribute to stabilization and peacebuilding.

The insights gained from the first GCF MENA Regional Dialogue underscore the importance of context-specific solutions and the need for collaboration among international organizations, local authorities, and peacebuilding entities. The organization of these regional dialogues plays a crucial role in achieving these objectives by facilitating direct engagement, knowledge exchange, and coordinated action among all stakeholders. 

Authors: Cesare Scartozzi, Salma Kadry, Grazia Pacillo, Davide Zoppolato (Alliance of Bioversity & CIAT).