In a new mini-series previewing the upcoming UN Climate Summit (COP28)’s new focus on relief, recovery, & peace, ECSP Program Director Lauren Risi spoke with David Nicholson, Director of the Environment, Energy and Climate Change Technical Support Unit at Mercy Corps.

Nicholson described his role in ensuring that climate change is at the center of Mercy Corps’ wide-ranging and successful global humanitarian aid programs in 42 countries—and the importance of having local staff to make interventions a true partnership. He also talks about climate finance, and his hopes that COP28’s theme of “relief, recovery and peace” will advance the view that peacemaking is essential to adaptation efforts. 

Read selected highlights of our discussion below – and listen to the entire conversation here: Relief, Recovery, and Peace: David Nicholson on COP28’s New Theme

On his work as Mercy Corps’ chief climate officer:

This is a relatively new role. It’s essentially my job is to ensure that the climate crisis is central to everything Mercy Corps does. We have a new strategy that was launched over a year ago now, and one of the things we’re trying to do with that is make sure that this climate crisis, and what we define as climate and conflict is the two main drivers of crisis around the world [is] central to all the work that we do. So I’m trying to work across the organization to ensure that we have the right skills, the right resources, the right approaches, and, and the right team to execute on that vision.

On how connections between peace, security and climate play out in the ground in 42 countries where Mercy Corps works:

It has been a really evolving picture. And, you know, if you think look across our portfolio … we’ve been working for over a decade in places like Colombia, and Nigeria, Mali, Somalia, Myanmar, Afghanistan, Iraq. These are all very diverse contexts, but they all share these conflict dynamics that are occurring. And one thing that we’ve seen as we’ve been … seeking to build community resilience to crisis—which is sort of at the core of what we do—[is] the growth of conflict-driven crisis in places that are also on the frontlines of climate change…. Places that are also experiencing climate change in the most real sense in over those recent years. … We’ve become increasingly clear that these things are just incredibly closely linked. We know we have plenty of evidence—both from ourselves and others. I think that we’re very confident now to say that climate change increases risk of conflict. And we see that very regularly in places we work. At the same time, you know, conflict and tensions reduce the ability of countries and communities to address the climate crisis. So these things are really two sides of the same coin in many places that we work.

On what Mercy Corps’ work in Ethiopia taught the organization about the links between peace and climate and resilience—and using a climate sensitive lens to conflict response:

I think increasingly, we see [conflict response and climate response] as a distinction without a difference. It’s really important to think about: What does resilience building at a community level look like? And then how do you make sure that both of these two drivers of crisis are being are being addressed together? The Ethiopia work was really formative for us. It really was one of the early bits of research we did to truly understand how these dynamics interact with one another. And what are the capacities? What are the capabilities that communities need in order to build resilience to whatever the shock is, right? And, you know, I think it’s never one shock. It’s never one crisis.

On the barriers to access finance for conflicted-affected states:

Financing is the biggest challenge we’re facing You know, there is just simply not enough money… UNEP’s new adaptation gaps report just came out, which they do on an annual basis. And they estimate that we’re somewhere between $194 and $368 billion short of what we need to be meeting adaptation needs right now. And it’s actually been a decline of 15% since 2021. So we’re going in the wrong direction.

So we have to think, first of all, [that] climate finance as a whole is woefully insufficient. Even within that envelope that we have, of course, there is nowhere near enough going to fragile and conflict-affected states. We’ve been trying to analyze these numbers … and track the somewhat murky and complex world of climate finance flows. And we found that $223 million in 2021 went to the 10 most fragile states. That’s less than 1% of all climate finance. Which, of course, is completely insufficient. So we’ve been working on with our peers, on policy recommendations as we go into COP.

And these aren’t hugely surprising [recommendations], you know. One is clear recognition among different climate funds that peacebuilding equals adaptation. So to actually allow the money that exists to be dedicated to this nexus of peacebuilding and climate change adaptation. And this does— to some degree—mean to reinvigorate some of the nexus discussions, because it has become really relevant. And recognize that fragility. There’s a reluctance of climate finance to go to these fragile states, because they’re so fragile, and there’s too much perceived risk associated. But the fragility is, to some degree, driven by the climate crisis. So we, you know, we have to recognize that—and I think there’s not enough recognition from decision makers….

Another policy recommendation is to really rethink risk. Climate finance tends to flow from the international financial institutions—and follow their risk frameworks. It means there’s a real reluctance. The risk appetite is just not there to get to the place we need. So we really need to see a rethinking of what outcomes should look like, and where risk is, [and] how we can increase the risk appetite.

We look at the Green Climate Fund, and if you see where the money is going from there, it’s doing good work. But it’s certainly not reaching the places that are in most need on the adaptation side. And, also, these are the countries that are least responsible for the climate crisis. So there is a real moral imperative underneath all of this.

On his hopes for what will emerge from COP 28:

The easy outcome that we hope to see is a continuation of peace being recognized, right? The declarations that come out with COP. These things matter. The language really matters. So we want to hear agreements. Declarations that are made. We want to make sure that both peace as an important part of adaptation, and fragile states as being elevated in the climate discussion, is really important and we hope to see that.

We want to see more discussions of how to increase risk among donors. And we just need to see more money. And see more money to be dedicated to these spaces. We are yet to see even an agreement on how much money should be going to adaptation writ large. We would love to see not only a target for adaptation financing—but a target within that—of money that should get to fragile and conflict-affected states.