Disclaimer:
All statements and opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not represent the views of WIIS Italy.
As climate change increasingly drives insecurity — through water scarcity, land degradation, and displacement — UN peace operations now face mission environments where environmental stress is both a cause and a multiplier of conflict. Yet despite growing awareness, no current peacekeeping mission has adopted climate adaptation as part of its core mandate. Missions such as UNMISS in South Sudan and MINUSCA in the Central African Republic operate in climate-vulnerable contexts, but references to environmental stress are often limited in scope and treated as secondary considerations rather than operational priorities. In contexts in which climate risks are mentioned — such as in the cases of MONUSCO (Democratic Republic of the Congo) or UNISFA (Abyei) — they are typically acknowledged in situational analysis but not elevated to operational priorities in mandate language or planning, which consequently also fails to address the gendered impacts of climate-related risks.
A Feminist Framework for Climate-Responsive Peacekeeping
The Women, Peace and Security (WPS) Agenda, born from UN Security Council Resolution 1325, offers a critical framework for rethinking the role of peace operations in climate-stressed, conflict-prone areas. If peacekeepers are to support sustainable peace, they must move beyond stabilisation to include gender-responsive climate adaptation, especially in communities where women are frontline responders managing land, water, and displacement.
Despite growing rhetorical commitments from the UN to address the climate-security nexus, implementation of said commitments within peace operations remains limited and inconsistent. The Action for Peacekeeping (A4P) initiative and its successor, A4P+, have emphasised the performance of peacekeeping missions, political solutions, and inclusive peace processes. Yet neither framework explicitly integrates climate adaptation or resilience-building in the face of climate-related risks as elements to be considered priorities within peacekeeping missions, nor do they provide operational guidance on how to mainstream climate considerations through a gender lens. As a result, peacekeeping missions continue to operate within a narrow stabilisation framework, missing key opportunities to prevent conflict and build resilience in climate-affected contexts. The gap between strategic ambition and operational execution is particularly evident when climate vulnerability intersects with gender inequality — precisely where WPS tools could be most impactful.
Nowhere is this disconnect more visible than in the missions in South Sudan (UNMISS) and the Central African Republic (MINUSCA). Both contexts face acute climate stress and entrenched gender inequality, shaped by long-standing patterns of marginalisation, insecurity, and limited access to resources. In South Sudan, recurring floods and droughts undermine agricultural livelihoods. Women, who constitute the majority of subsistence farmers, are often excluded from land governance structures. In the Central African Republic, environmental degradation has intensified conflict dynamics, while structural barriers limit women’s participation in local governance and resource management. These dynamics compound one another, reinforcing cycles of vulnerability that peacekeeping missions have yet to address meaningfully. Yet peacekeepers are rarely tasked, resourced, or trained to address the environmental dimensions of insecurity, much less the gendered impacts.
In South Sudan, seasonal flooding, erratic rainfall, and resource scarcity fuel communal clashes and repeated displacement. Women are disproportionately affected — they travel further to fetch water, bear the brunt of subsistence farming losses, and shoulder caregiving responsibilities in contexts of prolonged displacement. Despite these realities, the role of women as frontline responders is often overlooked in peacekeeping planning. However, the UN Peacebuilding Architecture Review presents an opportunity to change this and advance more inclusive approaches. Gender advisors within UNMISS are underutilised in designing climate-sensitive protection strategies, and mission coordination between protection, civil affairs, and environmental affairs units remains weak. Moreover, UNMISS has not systematically partnered with local women’s organisations engaged in environmental peacebuilding, nor has it used WPS tools — such as National Action Plans or community engagement frameworks — to support adaptation initiatives. Climate-related conflict prevention remains largely reactive, oriented towards early warning or displacement tracking, rather than proactive support for women-led climate resilience efforts that could prevent conflict from escalating in the first place.
In the Central African Republic, MINUSCA operates in a landscape shaped by armed conflict, political volatility, and environmental degradation. Deforestation, loss of arable land, and unsustainable resource extraction have fuelled armed group recruitment and intercommunal tensions. At the same time, climate pressures have exacerbated existing inequalities, particularly for women, who often face exclusion from land ownership and natural resource governance. Women’s organisations have nonetheless emerged as vital actors in managing land disputes, promoting sustainable livelihoods, and facilitating inter-communal dialogue. Yet, MINUSCA has not fully leveraged the WPS Agenda to support these efforts. Its gender programming remains largely focused on protection from sexual violence while missing opportunities to integrate women’s leadership in ecological recovery and adaptation planning. The mission also lacks structured partnerships with grassroots women’s networks engaged in environmental peacebuilding. As a result, MINUSCA’s approach remains fragmented and reactive, limiting its potential to advance gender-responsive climate security and to build lasting, locally grounded peace.
In both missions, gender equality is articulated in policy language but remains disconnected from operational strategy. WPS commitments are often confined to standalone gender units or protection work without informing broader mission planning, coordination, or resource allocation. Likewise, climate security is acknowledged in risk assessments or thematic briefings but is rarely embedded in inter-sectoral planning or scenario development. This fragmented approach marginalises both agendas — reducing WPS to protection and climate security to background analysis — when, in fact, their integration is essential to effective prevention. Embedding the WPS Agenda as a cross-cutting tool could strengthen missions’ ability to engage in climate-sensitive conflict prevention, support community resilience, and deliver more inclusive peace dividends.
Bridging Mandates and Realities: Advancing WPS in the Climate Crisis
To meet the demands of a rapidly warming world, peacekeeping must evolve beyond its stabilisation origins. Climate adaptation can no longer be treated as context — it must be recognised as a core aspect of conflict prevention. This means equipping missions with mandates and resources to address the environmental roots of instability: land degradation, water scarcity, and displacement. Climate resilience is not a peripheral issue. It is central to sustaining peace.
Translating this into operational practice requires rethinking institutional roles and power. Gender advisors — too often siloed into protection work — must be embedded in mission planning and coordination structures, working alongside civil-military planners, humanitarian teams, and environmental officers. Their insights are vital to designing early warning systems, scenario planning, and long-term resilience strategies that reflect the lived realities of frontline communities.
At the same time, women’s leadership in climate-affected areas must be elevated from the margins to the centre of peacebuilding. Across conflict zones, women are already managing resources, mediating disputes, and restoring land. Yet, these contributions are rarely funded, formalised, or folded into peacekeeping frameworks. Missions that fail to partner with these actors miss a critical opportunity — not only to support local adaptation but to build peace on the foundations of legitimacy and inclusion.
This transformation must also reach those deployed. Peacekeepers need more than thematic awareness — they need practical tools, scenario-based training, and an understanding of how climate stress interacts with gendered vulnerability. Empowering troops and civilian staff to support women-led solutions is not just the right thing to do. It is the smart thing to do.
In the face of escalating environmental threats, peacekeeping cannot afford to remain reactive or siloed. If it is to remain relevant, it must become resilient, and that resilience will be built by fully integrating the WPS Agenda into how missions understand, plan for, and respond to climate-driven conflict. WPS is not a side agenda. It is the strategy for peace in a climate-unstable world.
*Erin Lyons has nearly 20 years of experience in gender justice, peacebuilding, and environmental advocacy, working with UN agencies, humanitarian organisations, and international coalitions. She leads publications at the Center for International Environmental Law and is a fellow with Every Woman Treaty. All thoughts and opinions expressed are her own.
Commenti recenti