(C) PLOS One
This story was originally published by PLOS One and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .



Measuring the climate security nexus: The Integrated Climate Security Framework [1]

['Grazia Pacillo', 'International Center For Tropical Agriculture', 'Ciat', 'Cairo', 'Leonardo Medina', 'Brasilia', 'Leibniz Centre For Agricultural Landscape Research', 'Zalf', 'Berlin', 'Theresa Liebig']

Date: 2024-10

Abstract International, regional, and national organizations, alongside policymakers, are increasingly acknowledging the crucial connection between climate, peace, and security. However, there remains a notable gap in research methodologies capable of fully grasping the intricate dynamics of this relationship. This paper introduces the Integrated Climate Security Framework (ICSF), a comprehensive mixed-methods approach designed to unravel the complexities of climate-human security-conflict connections across various scales. By integrating traditional and innovative research methods, the ICSF aims to provide cutting-edge, policy-relevant insights to address five main measurement challenges of the climate security nexus: multiple pathways; context specificity; non-linearity; multiple actors and scales, and multiple geographic and time scales. By drawing on diverse epistemological perspectives and engaging directly with local communities, the framework offers a comprehensive evaluation of the complex social-ecological dynamics at play. Using Kenya as a case study—a country where climate and security risks frequently intersect and amplify each other—we demonstrate the comprehensive insights the framework offers to address the complex challenges at the nexus of climate, human security, and conflict.

Citation: Pacillo G, Medina L, Liebig T, Carneiro B, Schapendonk F, Craparo A, et al. (2024) Measuring the climate security nexus: The Integrated Climate Security Framework. PLOS Clim 3(10): e0000280. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000280 Editor: Jamie Males, PLOS Climate, UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND Received: September 4, 2023; Accepted: August 16, 2024; Published: October 21, 2024 Copyright: © 2024 Pacillo et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Data Availability: All the data and findings can be found here: https://cso.cgiar.org/ and here: https://cgspace.cgiar.org/. Funding: This work was supported by the CGIAR Trust Fund: https://www.cgiar.org/funders/ to the CGIAR ClimBeR and Fragility, Conflict and Migration research initiatives to GP. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction Analyzing the correlation between climate conditions, peace and security, commonly referred to as the "climate security nexus," has emerged as a key concern for numerous national, regional, and international policymakers [1–3]. This is primarily due to the escalating unpredictability, frequency, and severity of climate-related impacts, which are heightening the risks of human insecurity, particularly among the most vulnerable populations [4–7]. The ramifications of climate change are exacerbating underlying causes of conflict, while conflict and instability, in turn, render populations more susceptible to climate hazards. This creates a “vicious circle” wherein the most vulnerable individuals become ensnared in heightened marginalization, poverty, inequality, and fragility stemming from conflict-related issues [8,9]. Generating policy-relevant evidence regarding this nexus is challenging. The climate security nexus is an intricately complex and multifaceted phenomenon, encompassing dynamic interactions between environmental, social, cultural, economic, and political factors [10]. This complexity makes it difficult to understand the emergence, nature, and extent of climate-security links, complicating efforts to effectively inform policy decisions. Previous efforts to explore the climate security nexus have struggled to establish a consensus on the intersection of climate and security. With a few notable exceptions (e.g. [10,11]), the complexity of this nexus has often been overlooked or minimally addressed. For instance, many researchers have sought to characterize the climate security nexus through statistical models aiming to identify a direct, causal, and long-term impact of climate on conflict or peace [12–17]. They assume the absence of intermediary mechanisms between climate and conflict, overlook the temporal variability of impacts by focusing solely on long-term climate change events, and calculate global, regional, and national averages of effects, thereby disregarding the contextual specificity of the nexus. Moreover, they fail to incorporate indigenous knowledge provided by local stakeholders and affected communities. To address some of these limitations, other authors have focused on short-term hazards resulting from climate change (climate variability) rather than larger and longer changes in climatic conditions (climate change). They have used methods to account for intermediary effects and have embarked on more qualitative approaches to elicit indigenous knowledge [18–21]. These studies acknowledge that climate does not have a direct, linear effect on peace and security but, rather, that it acts as a “multiplier”, exacerbating existing socio-economic risks and insecurities such as agricultural losses, food insecurity, forced migration, and inequality, which can increase the risk, duration, and intensity of tensions and conflicts and therefore impact peace and security [7,14,22–24]. Some of these authors also explicitly recognize part of the complexity of the nexus by studying how both climate and conflict risks are influenced by and interconnected through a multiplicity of these intermediary factors that make up climate-insecurity feedback loops through a “vicious circle”, where climate can indirectly affect conflict dynamics and conflict can increase vulnerabilities to future climate hazards [8,10]. Another strand of the literature has challenged methods aiming to find causation or quantitative links between climate and conflict [25,26]. By focusing entirely on qualitative, ethnographic, and anthropological approaches, these authors intend to define the relation between climate and conflict by understanding how populations experience these risks in an overlapping and compounding manner, and by situating insecurity and vulnerability in a historical and cultural context [27]. Despite some significant improvements in the methodological approaches to studying the nexus, a recent systematic review of climate security literature showed that out of 142 studies on the climate security nexus, only 6 used a mixed-method approach [25,28]. In line with Beaumont & Coning (2022) [29] and Reyes-Garcia et al (2023) [30] and building on Zografos et al (2014) [31], in this paper we argue that comprehensive assessments of the complex social-ecological dynamics that comprise this nexus require not only adopting mixed-methods that rely on a combination of diverse qualitative and quantitative, locally-relevant, and multifaceted data sources, but also systems approaches that engage with a diversity of actors involved in the co-production of knowledge. The Integrated Climate Security Framework (ICSF) presented in this paper uses a comprehensive set of approaches and data to qualify and quantify the climate security nexus, addressing five main complexity challenges (multiple pathways, context specificity, non-linear dynamics, multiple sectors and actors, and multiple geographical and temporal dimensions). Although some of these methods are not new, they have been tailored and designed to specifically address climate security challenges. To showcase the range of information and knowledge we can gather through the ICSF, this paper presents a case study of Kenya, a hotspot for climate and security risks. The framework aims to elicit robust, policy-relevant evidence and to provide tools to inform targeting, programming, and the design of effective climate security-sensitive policy and investments that are tailored to specific contexts. Adopting such a systems approach is crucial not only to help policymakers target and prioritize areas and groups of the population that are most affected by compound risks and insecurities but also to align climate resilience to peacebuilding objectives thereby reshaping food, land, and water systems to sustain peace in a changing climate. The rest of the paper is structured as follows: Section 1 presents the theoretical framework that describes how we define the linkages between climate, human security, and conflict; Section 2 discusses the complexities of measuring this nexus; Section 3 describes the ICSF framework and its components; Section 4 presents findings of the ICSF in Kenya, and Section 5 concludes.

Section 1. The climate security nexus theoretical framework Our conceptual framework builds and connects the work by Buhaug and Von Uexkull (2021) [8] and Zografos et al (2014) [31]. We argue that a “vicious circle” between climate hazards, conflict, and overall human security exists through their reinforcing impacts on vulnerability and exposure and as mediated by political ecology interactions and adaptation processes and outcomes that are highly contextual (Fig 1). PPT PowerPoint slide

PNG larger image

TIFF original image Download: Fig 1. The climate security nexus theoretical framework. The graph shows a “vicious circle” between climate hazards, conflict, and overall human security through their reinforcing impacts on vulnerability and exposure and as mediated by political ecology interactions, conflict and cooperation dynamics, and adaptation processes and outcomes that are highly contextual. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000280.g001 Human security is defined as freedom from fear [32], freedom from need [33], freedom from hazards [34], and freedom to live in dignity [35]. These freedoms translate into individual safety and the protection of basic human rights, access to material well-being, and equality [36–38]. Human security encompasses a series of material and non-material security of individuals and communities within the specific socioeconomic, cultural, and political economy context they occupy [31]. Our conceptual framework postulates that the impact of climate hazards on human security is a result of the interaction of exposure and vulnerability to climate hazards (for definitions please see S1 Table). We specifically focus on climate extremes and variability that manifest in fast and slow-onset climatic shocks and stressors [39]. Climate can have direct and indirect impacts on the exposure and vulnerabilities of individuals and communities. Direct impacts often occur in the presence of severe and extreme climate events, such as floods, which cause losses of infrastructure and assets, and forced displacement, among others. Indirect impacts materialize through the effects on the quality and quantity of natural resources, such as land and water, agricultural productivity, rural livelihood options, and food prices, that can significantly affect the functioning and effectiveness of food systems, causing food and nutrition insecurities and exacerbating existing inequalities. Climate hazard impacts on exposure and vulnerability do not directly result in changes in human security outcomes. Rather, these impacts are mediated and shaped by structural, institutional, and relational drivers (Table 1) that reflect the historical, socio-political, cultural, economic, and environmental specificity of the context where individuals and communities are located. These political ecology drivers mold behaviors within decision-making processes and influence resource entitlements, adaptive capacities, and societal relations, such as conflict and cooperation. PPT PowerPoint slide

PNG larger image

TIFF original image Download: Table 1. Definition of structural, institutional, and relational political ecology factors that can mediate the impact of climate on vulnerabilities, human security, and conflict. Adapted from Lederach (2003) [40]. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000280.t001 Pre-existing patterns of cooperation and conflict, and adaptation processes and outcomes can also impact exposure and vulnerability. Armed conflict, conflict, and tensions, through development failure, forced migration, and hunger crises, for example, can increase vulnerability by lowering economic development, increasing inequalities and marginalization, also affecting climate adaptive capacities [41]. It is important to note that, in our framework, we refrain from large-scale, internal, or international conflict or civil wars but we focus on small-scale internal tensions, violence, and conflicts, including protests, riots, and conflict events with or without fatalities whose dynamics might be related to the impact of climate on food, land, and water systems, which are reliant on and contribute to ecosystem services crucial for sustaining rural livelihoods. Finally, the overall impact of climate hazards on human security also depends on the ability of the government to adapt infrastructure and society to current and future climate impacts and to foresee the impact that climate has on multiple root causes of human security. Early warning systems, drought and flood-resistant agricultural policies and practices, and resilient infrastructure that equally benefit different groups of the population and disproportionately help the most vulnerable and exposed can reduce the impact of climate hazards on overall societal human security. Failure to do so can be the source of “divergent” or maladaptation episodes [42], or else situations where climate adaptation interventions produce adverse vulnerability outcomes and could increase competition over resources or generate grievances that can increase the risk of conflict [31,43]. The results of these interactions can increase or decrease human security outcomes, alter political economy factors, and directly or indirectly affect vulnerability via impacts on livelihood assets, adaptive capacities and exposure, and its effect on natural resources and ecosystems. It can also generate grievances and reduce the opportunity cost of tensions and violence, in contexts with higher dependence on a climate-sensitive agricultural sector, lower human development (poverty, illiteracy, low health), lower adaptive capacity, higher inequality, socio-economic and political discrimination and marginalization, weaker traditional institutions (such as chiefs and customary rules in natural resources access and management) [10,28,31]. This conceptual framework draws inspiration from a range of theories developed in the fields of human security, common-pool resource management, climate security, political ecology, and conflict transformation. The framework was developed under the understanding that, although the abundance or scarcity of natural resources may incentivize conflict and collaboration [19,44–47], it is rather historical, socioeconomic, political, and cultural factors that have the greatest impact on the onset and development of conflicts and collaborative processes that are related to the environment. As such, focusing on indirect and complex pathways, our reading of the climate security nexus does not embrace the securitization or commodification of climate and natural resources [48]. Rather, drawing inspiration from the field of common-pool resource management, particularly the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework, developed by Ostrom (2005) [49] our framework acknowledges that institutional practices shape responsive behaviors among diverse stakeholders in the face of climate threats and actions, both within formal and informal decision-making contexts. Post-structural political ecologists have emphasized the socially constructed nature of resource entitlements and scarcities [50], along with the need to account for the historical material drivers of contemporary conflict [51]. This perspective challenges eco-determinist approaches to the study of environmental security and its frequent reliance on simplistic causation between climate change effects and conflict. In line with this argument, the framework guides a more nuanced understanding of the intricate interplay between environmental changes and their effects as ultimately shaped by sociocultural, political, economic, and historical contexts unfolding in a globalized society [31,52]. It intends to recognize the environment as a site of power contestation that transforms natural resources into entitlements and shapes the degree of individual and collective agency in the face of climate threats [53,54]. Moreover, following Barnett (2019) [27], we recognize that research on climate and conflict tends to focus overwhelmingly on violence and its drivers, neglecting the fact that social relations are often shaped more by collaboration than conflict [55]. From a positive ontological perspective, climate change has the potential to foster a "climate-resilient peace" by promoting interdependencies and collaborative patterns through climate adaptation efforts [27]. Hence, even in settings where empirical evidence suggests an interconnection between climate effects and conflict dynamics, conflictive situations can mobilize societies towards constructive outcomes, such as challenging structural sources of climate-related vulnerabilities and the powers perpetuating them [56,57]. This assertion does not preclude, though, the possibility that, in certain contexts, the effects of climate change might interact with and exacerbate pre-existing factors contributing to antagonistic relations [58] or undermine peacebuilding efforts in post-conflict settings [59].

Section 2. The challenges in measuring the complex climate security nexus One of the primary challenges in understanding and measuring the climate security nexus lies in the existence of multiple pathways or mechanisms through which climate factors can worsen existing risks and vulnerabilities, leading to heightened conflicts, and on the other side conflicts can weaken resilience capacities. Various plausible pathways include competition for scarce and abundant resources like water, land, and forests, food insecurity, population displacement, shifts in livelihood opportunities and economic performance, heightened exposure to extreme events, and increased grievances against governmental authorities, among others [44,45,51,60,61]. The interplay between these pathways and their interactions with socio-political dynamics can vary significantly depending on the context (context specificity) [25]. Different regions, countries, and communities experience distinct environmental, socioeconomic, cultural, and political conditions, which shape their susceptibility to climate impacts which could co-occur and interact with common drivers of human security and conflict. Political awareness and planning, governance structures, institutional capabilities, social cohesion, historical contexts, and cultural norms are significant determinants of how climate-related pressures translate into conflict risks and vice versa [50,62,63]. Another challenge in measuring the nexus between climate, human security, and conflict is that climate, human security and conflict often exhibit nonlinear dynamics. This means their relationship is neither consistently linear nor proportional [64]. Even minor alterations in climate or environmental conditions can yield disproportionately significant effects on social systems and conflict patterns. Feedback loops and tipping points are common occurrences, wherein climate-induced changes exacerbate pre-existing vulnerabilities, social tensions, and conflict dynamics. This amplification effect can lead to unpredictable and potentially severe consequences for social cohesion, peace, and security [65]. Furthermore, the climate-human security-conflict nexus encompasses a diverse array of stakeholders operating across various scales, ranging from local communities to national governments, international organizations, and transnational networks (multiple actors and scales). These actors possess distinct interests, priorities, and capabilities in addressing both climate-related challenges and conflict prevention. Understanding the diverse perspectives and capacities of these stakeholders is essential for developing comprehensive and inclusive strategies to address the interconnected issues of climate and conflict [66]. Lastly, it is essential to consider the spatial and temporal scales of the impacts of different hazards on drivers of vulnerability and human security are highly context-specific and heterogeneous (multiple geographical and temporal dimensions [17,18]). This heterogeneity derives from the sequential and circular nature of the impact of climate and conflict on human security. Namely, the occurrence of hazards that affect human security at a specific point in time and location might not result in a change in conflict or cooperation patterns in the same location and time. Spatial and temporal lags exist between the occurrence of the hazard and its resulting insecurity. This variability underscores the importance of carefully assessing and interpreting findings within their specific spatial and temporal contexts to draw accurate conclusions about climate security dynamics [60,67,68].

Conclusions Discourses on how to qualify and quantify the “climate security nexus” have increased significantly in the past decade. This is because the accelerating climate crisis is visibly exacerbating a combination of human security risks and often causing tensions and conflicts. Our reading of the climate security nexus does not embrace the securitization of climate, which has been largely criticized by scholars and policymakers as it would imply attributing to climate causes of conflicts that are inherently cultural, social, and political. Nevertheless, research points out that a nexus between climate and root causes of vulnerabilities that could lead to or intensify pre-existing drivers of conflict exists. The main challenge of this discourse and research, though, is to identify the right analytical framework that does not simplistically qualify these intricate and complex relationships and dynamics, that identifies multiple pathways, that does not draw linear causal associations, that accounts for context specificity, and that gives voices to affected communities and represent the views of multiple actors at multiple scales. In this paper, we present the Integrated Climate Security Framework (ICSF), which deliberately attempts to address the multiple complexity challenges of the climate security nexus. The framework uses a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods and data specifically designed to provide state-of-the-art policy-relevant evidence on how, where, and for whom climate is exacerbating root causes of vulnerabilities that can lead to human insecurity and conflict. The wide breadth of methodologies proposed by the framework allows for a comprehensive collation and collection of relevant information that reflects the complex social-ecological dynamics of the climate security nexus. It does so by adopting systems approaches that rely on a combination of epistemological stances, thereby relying on a diverse set of new and specifically tailored qualitative and quantitative, locally relevant, and multifaceted data sources; and on a diversity of actors involved in the co-production of knowledge. We use Kenya as a case study. The framework outlined in this paper exhibits several limitations. Systems approaches inherently pose complexity and integration challenges. There is a need to refine the sequencing of methods, ensuring that quantitative analyses better inform or align with qualitative findings. However, findings derived from diverse methods often operate at disparate geographical and temporal scales, complicating direct comparisons. Moreover, units of analysis vary depending on the method and data availability. Nonetheless, the diversity of findings is not entirely a limitation when it comes to complex systems such as the one under analysis. For this reason, our framework abstains as much as it can from averaging this diversity and instead values the richness of information gathered through different approaches and methods to provide a more comprehensive picture of the nexus. Data scarcity presents another obstacle, particularly concerning values and cultural aspects, which are not consistently documented across different regions and scales. Additionally, discussions on security matters are sensitive, with communities, especially marginalized groups, as well as policymakers and stakeholders, often hesitant to engage in dialogue regarding tensions and conflicts. This reluctance is notably pronounced in relatively peaceful countries. Even when policymakers are receptive to discussions on climate security, translating scientific knowledge into actionable policy decisions remains challenging. Addressing these limitations requires ongoing efforts to refine methodologies, enhance data availability, and foster inclusive dialogue among stakeholders. These limitations underscore the need for further research to improve and refine our analytical methods, enabling us to offer decision-makers a multi-dimensional perspective on the complex dynamics of the climate, human security, and conflict nexus as it unfolds in reality. Providing policy-relevant evidence that brings together existing literature, data, policies, and social media, and gives voice to affected communities and stakeholders at multiple scales will help to identify and prioritize areas and groups of the population that are most affected by compound risks and insecurities, as well as to design more effective and sustainable climate adaptation interventions that “do not harm” and become true “instruments for peace”.

Acknowledgments This work was carried out with support from the CGIAR Initiatives on Climate Resilience, ClimBeR and Fragility, Conflict and Migration (FCM). We would like to thank all funders who supported this research through their contributions to the CGIAR Trust Fund: https://www.cgiar.org/funders/.

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal.pclm.0000280

Published and (C) by PLOS One
Content appears here under this condition or license: Creative Commons - Attribution BY 4.0.

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/plosone/

You are viewing proxied material from magical.fish. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.