This capacity gap assessment is presented as a pioneering effort to better understand the rapidly evolving field of climate, peace and security. Conducted under the Climate, Peace and Security Experts Academy, a joint initiative of the Cairo International Center for Conflict Resolution, Peacekeeping and Peacebuilding and the United Nations Development Programme, the assessment is based on the first direct survey of policymakers, negotiators, experts, and youth leaders from regions facing both climate vulnerability and conflict or fragility. Because many participants had not previously received formal training in climate, peace and security, the findings offer a grounded picture of practical challenges and needs rather than simply reflecting high-level policy debates.
Drawing on data collected between 2022 and 2024 across seven iterations of the Academy, the report highlights both shared global challenges and important regional, generational, and gender differences. It finds that while climate, peace and security is widely recognized as a high priority, there is still a major gap between political recognition and real implementation. Many respondents said that peace and security concerns are still largely missing from national climate policies and financing frameworks, even though most see a strong need to integrate security risks into climate action and broader development planning.
A major theme running through the assessment is the disconnect between experts working on climate and environment and those focused on peace, governance, and security. Collaboration across these sectors remains limited, with only a minority of policymakers and experts regularly working together or even knowing colleagues from the other field. This siloed approach is seen as a key obstacle to effective policy integration and programme delivery. The report suggests that improving networking and coordination at national and local levels could be one of the most practical ways to generate more coherent and impactful responses to interconnected climate and security risks.
The findings also show that policy coordination remains weak because different professional communities prioritize different frameworks. Climate practitioners tend to focus on climate-specific processes such as Nationally Determined Contributions and National Adaptation Plans, while peace and governance experts are more engaged in broader development and governance policies. This divergence makes it harder to build integrated solutions. The report argues that stronger collaboration, shared understanding, and joint mechanisms are needed to align climate plans with peacebuilding and governance strategies.
Across regions, the most frequently identified challenges include resource scarcity and competition, climate-related displacement and forced migration, weak governance, limited sustainable livelihoods, and poor access to finance. However, the report notes that priorities differ depending on local context. Youth participants, for example, showed a much stronger concern about governance deficits and institutional weakness than other groups. This is linked to their exclusion from many decision-making spaces, which not only disconnects policy from lived realities but also deepens insecurity for younger and marginalized populations.
One of the clearest conclusions of the assessment is that capacity constraints are seen as an even bigger obstacle than lack of financing. More policymakers and experts identified institutional and technical capacities as the most critical gap, ahead of finance. Weak capacities are described as a central reason why countries, especially fragile and conflict-affected contexts, struggle to design integrated policies, formulate bankable projects, and access climate finance. The report therefore frames capacity development as a cornerstone for unlocking finance and improving the quality of climate, peace and security programming.
Although access to climate finance is not universally absent, it remains highly uneven. Fragile and conflict-affected contexts make up a disproportionate share of those with limited or no access to climate finance. Only a small share of respondents reported accessing resources from international financial institutions or development banks, and even fewer from fragile contexts were able to do so. The assessment emphasizes that co-financing and private sector engagement are increasingly important, but many vulnerable settings lack the institutional readiness and technical skills needed to take advantage of these opportunities.
The report also highlights the important role of women’s leadership in building more integrated and collaborative approaches. Women participants were more likely than men to report regular cross-sector collaboration and were also more likely to raise issues such as violent extremism and violence against women, which male respondents did not highlight. These findings suggest that strengthening women’s participation is not only a matter of inclusion but can also improve the substance and coordination of climate, peace and security strategies. Similarly, the report stresses that youth leadership must be better supported, especially since young people often identify governance and resilience issues that are overlooked in mainstream policymaking.
In response to these findings, the assessment outlines several priorities for future capacity-building. It calls for multidisciplinary training that brings together climate, peace, and governance actors to build shared understanding and practical skills for joint action. It also recommends dedicated technical training on climate policies and financing for national, sub-national, and local actors, especially in contexts where governments rely heavily on external expertise. Another key priority is the institutionalization of climate, peace and security within national systems through clear mandates, dedicated budgets, and sustained training across government institutions rather than one-off workshops.
The report further stresses the need to strengthen adaptive planning and resilient strategy development. Policymakers and experts need better skills in scenario planning, risk analysis, contingency measures, and the use of science, artificial intelligence, and emerging technologies to respond to climate-related security risks. In addition, more practical training is needed in project formulation, monitoring, evaluation, and donor engagement so that local actors can design fundable projects and navigate complex financing requirements. At the same time, the report argues that donors should make financing frameworks more flexible so they better reflect the realities of fragile and conflict-affected settings.
Overall, the assessment concludes that advancing climate, peace and security requires much more than simply increasing funding. It requires stronger institutions, better technical skills, deeper cross-sector collaboration, and more inclusive leadership. By investing in networking, policy integration, adaptive capacities, and women- and youth-led approaches, governments and partners can begin to close the gap between ambition and implementation and build more effective climate policies and financing pathways that support peace.
