KEY TAKEAWAYS
KEY TAKEAWAYS
Amid a changing climate, understanding the interplay between extreme environmental events and conflict is only growing more important. Droughts, floods and other natural disasters can exacerbate socioeconomic vulnerabilities, highlight weaknesses in governance, disrupt livelihoods and increase perceptions of marginalization.
The resulting instability opens the door for non-state armed groups (NSAGs) to flourish. These groups often capitalize on grievances to assert control over resources and services. As a result, there is increasing overlap between areas that are vulnerable to extreme environmental events and areas where NSAGs are most active.
However, the relationship between natural disasters and conflict is not absolute, and in fact can provide opportunities for positive collaboration. Communities often come together in the wake of disaster — but this cooperation tends to be short-lived without good governance to help sustain it.
As such, there is shared interest among the climate, security and peacebuilding communities in expanding the use of climate early warning systems. These early warning systems have the potential to increase governments’ preparedness and responsiveness to environmental events, which in turn can stifle the conditions that enable NSAGs.
NSAGs — such as violent extremist organizations and gangs — have already grown adept at leveraging the impacts of natural disasters on communities, as well as the gaps left by inadequate state disaster response, to assert control. For example, following the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami in Sri Lanka, the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) diverted millions of dollars of aid money to build up their own arsenal. In Mali, armed groups increased recruitment by providing young people with stable incomes when drought conditions left families without jobs or food.
Furthermore, preexisting conflict can hinder the government’s ability to provide disaster assistance — which can impact the government’s legitimacy, foster distrust and create openings for NSAGs. In northern Mozambique, for instance, there is a long history of perceived marginalization and neglect from the government. The government failed to adequately support communities displaced by two severe cyclones in 2019, creating the conditions for the Islamic State-Mozambique to use poor disaster response to turn existing community-level tensions and violence into a broader conflict.
The increasingly complicated information landscape can further challenge a government’s ability to respond, as NSAGs look to exploit misinformation and disinformation. For example, jihadist groups in Iraq have spread rumors throughout rural communities blaming drought not on climate change, but on perceived efforts to drive Sunni landowners off fertile lands.
Early warnings for extreme weather events can help governments mobilize effective disaster responses before NSAGs have the opportunity to exploit vulnerable communities.
[Early warning systems] can help governments mobilize effective disaster responses before NSAGs have the opportunity to exploit vulnerable communities.
Yet only 50 percent of countries have multi-hazard early warning systems (MHEWS). And of those, many lack sufficient data and coverage, leaving more than 2.4 billion people vulnerable to weather, climate and environmental shocks and stressors.
This lack of access to early warning information has created a global imperative to increase MHEWS coverage — especially as climate change intensifies hazardous conditions. The U.N. secretary general established Early Warnings for All (EW4A) in 2022 with the goal of providing universal access to MHEWS by the end of 2027. This cross-U.N. effort integrates the U.N. Office of Disaster Risk Reduction’s work on early warning systems through the Sendai Framework with the World Meteorological Organization, International Telecommunications Union, and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.
Meanwhile, the importance of MHEWS has been echoed in multiple global calls for action. Two key outcomes from COP28 — the first Global Stocktake of the Paris Agreement and UAE Framework for Global Climate Resilience — both affirmed the need for MHEWS, climate information services for risk reduction, and systematic observations to support improved climate-related data, information and services by 2027.
In addition, COP28 also recognized the role of early warning systems and anticipatory action in building a more peaceful and resilient world as part of the COP28 Declaration on Climate, Relief, Recovery, and Peace. Most recently, the Pact for the Future included the protection of “everyone on Earth through universal coverage of MHEWS by 2027, including through the accelerated implementation of the EW4A initiative” to strengthen climate action.
Despite these global calls for action, there remain significant barriers to meeting the 2027 target, including lack of finance, technology, capacity and data coupled with insufficient coordination. In countries experiencing conflict and instability, the barriers are even higher, the needs more urgent. But implementation is still falling further behind.
Early warning systems have a demonstrated return on investment and EW4A has provided the clarion call to the international community. The challenge is that many countries experiencing conflict do not have the capacity to provide early warning of, or adequate response to, a natural disaster.
Many countries experiencing conflict do not have the capacity to provide early warning of, or adequate response to, a natural disaster.
As a result, these countries continue to get left behind, as demonstrated in Sudan and South Sudan, where civil war and persistent violent conflict cause EW4A efforts to lag significantly behind the global average. Very little progress has been made to build out legal frameworks and institutional mechanisms, effectively monitor hazards, or utilize remote-sensing data for early warning — all of which exacerbate the negative vulnerability spiral.
Specific efforts need to be made to ensure that countries in greatest need of MHEWS can get access. Below are six recommendations that can help ensure EW4A is not widening the vulnerability gap while also reducing the risk that NSAGs will be able to take advantage of a natural disaster due to inadequate government responses.
MHEWS inform natural disaster planning and response and can help build trust and support for longer-term proactive measures that are important in conflict areas. While developing planning documents requires capacity, documenting MHEWS as a priority through national adaptation plans, adaptation communications, long-term strategies and/or development plans can help donors and funders more readily support implementation.
These planning documents set targets to facilitate tracking and communicating progress, which in turn can increase the durability of implementation and help build public support. Investing in MHEWS has successfully reduced harm to people, communities and infrastructure, as seen in Mozambique after Cyclone Freddy in 2023.
Many of the most vulnerable countries also face significant debt burdens that constrain their ability to prepare for and respond to natural disasters.
Both the World Bank and International Monetary Fund have introduced debt relief programs that allow countries to defer loan repayments following a natural disaster to focus their limited resources on response and recovery.
But while debt relief programs after a disaster are important, more is needed to reduce debt burdens in vulnerable countries given the shifting frequency and intensity of extreme events. One possible solution is “debt swaps” for MHEWS development to incentivize disaster planning and early action so that debt concessions are not just available post-disaster, when it is arguably too late.
Cross-border coordination and cooperation is imperative for the implementation of MHEWS given the inherently transboundary nature of climate change. Sharing information and developing a plan for cross-border movement of people during an environmental crisis can help establish clear expectations and processes and reduce tensions that can arise during a natural disaster.
These were important lessons learned from ECOWAS’s Warning and Response Network. Data availability is often a critical limitation in fragile areas, and leveraging a cross-border approach to data collection and sharing can help to address gaps, build resilience into the MHEWS if data sources in one area go offline, and provide data validation if there are concerns with misinformation, disinformation or data manipulation.
Humanitarian, security and hydrometeorological organizations deploying MHEWS — as well as state institutions at the national, subnational and local levels — need to strengthen coordination to ensure that early warning systems can support decision-making and early action. These groups often do not cooperate or communicate with each other due to institutional silos and/or an unwillingness to share information due to distrust. MHEWS can help stakeholders overcome those issues and present an opportunity for careful civilian-military cooperation in support of response and recovery efforts. Effective multi-institutional cooperation, however, requires clearly defined roles and responsibilities before, during and after a natural disaster occurs.
Governing institutions can get ahead of disasters by providing preemptive support through initiatives such as parametric insurance. This early action can help to minimize the financial damage caused by a natural disaster and jumpstart recovery, as recognized by COP28’s Getting Ahead of Disasters charter.
For example, the U.S. government has partnered with Africa Risk Capacity, Ltd to increase access to parametric insurance across Africa. In Bangladesh, the World Food Programme provided cash advances before Cyclone Remal made landfall in May which prevented a huge chunk of the vulnerable population from experiencing poverty and food insecurity in the wake of the storm. Bangladesh has also expanded its Cyclone Preparedness Programme into its 33 government-managed refugee and internally displaced persons camps, increasing resilience in areas where disaster-induced mass evacuations would pose particularly severe risks.
Putting a greater emphasis on the entire early warning value chain — from information to action — is essential for ensuring that people can adequately respond to warnings and reduce the potential for maladaptation.
Increasing the use of participatory approaches for data collection and dissemination can help ensure community buy-in and increase the likelihood that people will heed the warnings.
Participatory approaches also provide an opportunity for integrating multiple knowledge sources and empowering marginalized groups. For example, women often lack access to information and resources to prepare for, respond to and recover from natural disasters. Increasing the participation among women in developing local MHEWS can help to overcome this barrier.
These approaches must be simple, flexible and leverage existing capabilities such as cell phones, while also meeting basic data quality standards to avoid maladaptive responses due to inaccurate information.
For example, the Developing Risk Awareness Through Joint Action effort in Tanzania focused on community-led actions to improve the uptake and responsiveness to early warnings. This included providing information in the local language through radio, WhatsApp, public awareness and school programs as well as cultivating partnerships among stakeholders to create buy-in.
These recommendations have particular salience for the outcomes of COP29 and the G20 Summit, as there are implications for the future of early warning systems throughout both agendas.
At COP29, all eyes are on the finance negotiations around the New Collective Quantified Goal to see if parties can unlock the money needed to support ambitious climate action, including early warning systems.
Then, as COP29 wraps up, G20 leaders will be convening to further discuss how to mobilize support for sustainable development. Earlier this month, the G20 released the Disaster Risk Reduction Ministerial Declaration reaffirming support for EW4A. However, this call to action is disappointingly silent on resource mobilization, which could have sent a strong signal for the COP29 negotiations.
As we approach the halfway point toward realizing EW4A by 2027, it is encouraging that the international community continues to champion delivering on the EW4A goals. However, a lot of work remains to achieve universal coverage — and, more importantly, to ensure that the most vulnerable countries are not left further behind. This means moving beyond supportive rhetoric to deliver meaningful action on the ground.
MHEWS are a unique and proven tool for climate action, offering a tenfold return on investment, the protection of lives and property, and support for climate-resilient development. In addition, MHEWS support global peace and security by enabling more effective preparation for, response to and recovery from natural disasters, which reduces the risk that NSAGs will exploit the situation and create further instability.
While the outcomes from COP29 and the G20 Summit will likely not be as ambitious as the world needs, there are clear opportunities to accelerate progress on early warning systems with sufficient political will and global leadership. Achieving EW4A would demonstrate to the global community that, despite differences and competing priorities, countries can unite around a common goal and actually deliver on what they say. It would also reinforce the importance of climate resilience for realizing broader development and security objectives. As such, we must do all we can to realize EW4A by 2027.
Cassandra Schneider is a senior program officer for USIP’s climate, environment and conflict program.