Climate Funding Inequity In Conflict Affected Areas- A Thorn In The Sustainable

Development Goals

Abstract
The Horn of Africa, a region steeped in conflict, cradles a precious treasure: one of the world's
only two arid biodiversity hotspots. This irreplaceable ecosystem, brimming with endemic
plants and life, forms the cornerstone of SDG 15's vision for protecting land-based life. Yet,
ongoing conflict casts a long shadow, jeopardising the very existence of this unique tapestry of
nature.
This paper delves into the critical funding gap hindering the Horn of Africa's efforts to meet
SDG 15 targets, specifically the vital goal of mobilising resources for sustainable land
management. Despite international commitments to support developing countries, conflict-
ridden areas like Somalia and northern Ethiopia receive a disproportionately meagre share of
climate funding. This blind spot in resource allocation demands urgent attention, as the cost of
inaction in these fragile ecosystems is immense.
The paper dissects the two-pronged challenge: First, the Conflict weakens governance
structures, making them fall short of the stringent criteria for accessing climate finance and
Second, disparate funding streams, often focused solely on immediate humanitarian needs, fail
to address the long-term environmental challenges exacerbated by conflict.
To bridge this gap, the paper proposes innovative solutions including prioritising conflict-
affected regions like the Horn of Africa, as exemplified by the recent COP 28 Declaration and
coalescing climate, development, and humanitarian funds around a common purpose of
sustainable land management and resilience against climate change.By addressing the funding
inequity, we can empower the Horn of Africa to protect its precious biodiversity, fostering a
future where environmental conservation and conflict resolution go hand-in-hand.

Introduction
‘The war had made the land angry. The earth, once fertile and yielding, now choked on the
detritus of violence. Shell casings sprouted like poisonous weeds, and the air, once sweet with the
scent of mangoes, now reeked of cordite and decay.’

Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, in the above evocative prose, paints a grim picture of war's
devastation on the environment. This haunting imagery resonates deeply with the current
reality of the Horn of Africa, a region harbouring a unique and irreplaceable treasure – one of
only two arid biodiversity hotspots on Earth. Yet, amidst this vibrant ecosystem, woven across
parched landscapes, a different kind of battle rages: the fight for equitable access to resources
needed to protect this precious ecosystem in the face of climate funding inequity.
The Horn of Africa boasts a staggering array of endemic species, from the Critically
Endangered Somali wild ass to the hamadryas baboon, thriving in a mosaic of habitats from the
Rift Valley to the Socotra Archipelago. However, this region also grapples with the harsh
realities of conflict. Decades-long civil wars in Somalia, internal strife in South Sudan, and
border tensions across Ethiopia have cast long shadows over the land, threatening not only
human lives but the very fabric of this irreplaceable biodiversity.1

Sadly, the scars of conflict go beyond immediate human suffering. Developed nations, often
citing the "high-risk" nature of these conflict zones, tend to neglect or forego funding for
environmental initiatives in the Horn of Africa. On average, countries that are highly or very
highly vulnerable to climate change received less than a quarter of the adaptation funding per
person.2This funding disparity leaves communities struggling to adapt to a changing climate,
jeopardising the survival of endemic species and the fragile ecosystems they call home.

But can we justify turning a blind eye to this ecological crisis, both for the sake of the Horn of
Africa and for the planet as a whole? Biodiversity is the lifeblood of our planet, providing clean
air, food security, and countless ecosystem services. Neglecting the Horn of Africa's arid jewel is
not merely neglecting a region in turmoil; it is jeopardising the very foundation of life on Earth.

This paper delves into this critical issue, exploring the complex interplay between climate
funding inequity, conflict, and the fate of the Horn of Africa's biodiversity hotspot. It will
examine the challenges posed by weak governance, fragmented funding streams, and the
limitations of current funding systems in conflict zones. The paper will then propose solutions
that prioritise conflict sensitivity, equitable resource allocation, and sustainable land
management practices.By shining a light on this urgent issue, we aim to foster a global
conversation that prioritises the protection of the planet's most vulnerable ecosystems,
regardless of the political or social landscapes they inhabit. The future of the Horn of Africa's
biodiversity, and ultimately, our own, hangs in the balance.

Where does the risk lie?

The most convincing argument to incentivise funding is to realise that inaction itself has a cost.
The tendency to bypass high-risk areas when allocating climate adaptation funding might seem
prudent on the surface, but it overlooks a crucial reality: inaction has its own, often far greater,
cost. This short-sighted approach leaves vulnerable communities, exposed to the full brunt of a
changing climate, ultimately causing a domino effect of heightened humanitarian needs,
increased tensions, and potential development setbacks across the region. In the grand scheme
of things, neglecting these areas becomes a recipe for instability and significantly higher costs

1Luke L Brown, Biodiversity Hotspots in the Horn of Africa(Routledge, 2020), pp. 12-15.
2 Ibid
down the line.Therefore, it's time to fundamentally rethink the concept of risk in conflict-
affected countries when it comes to climate finance. While concerns about instability are
understandable, we must recognize that the gravest risk lies not in attempting to invest in
adaptation, but in failing to do so. Ignoring the environmental challenges in these regions only
allows existing problems to fester, potentially escalating conflict, displacing populations, and
further harming already struggling communities.3

Investing in climate adaptation in high-risk areas isn't simply a humanitarian act; it's a strategic
investment in future stability. By providing resources for sustainable land management, early
warning systems, and climate-resilient infrastructure, we can:Reduce humanitarian needs,
Promote peace and security and Boost development. Ultimately, neglecting high-risk areas is
not a risk-averse strategy; it's a gamble with potentially devastating consequences.Let's be blunt:
inaction has a cost, and in the Horn of Africa, that cost is staggering. A recent World Bank
study paints a grim picture: neglecting climate adaptation initiatives in the region could result
in economic losses of up to $300 billion by 2050. Imagine the devastation: destroyed
infrastructure, crippled agricultural production, and mass displacement, leading to a refugee
crisis that spills over national borders and destabilised entire regions.

The Horn of Africa is not an isolated archipelago; its woes ripple outwards, creating a tsunami
of challenges for the rest of the world. Failure to address food insecurity here can trigger
desperate waves of migration, straining the resources of neighbouring countries and potentially
fueling social unrest. The region is also a crucial link in the global supply chain, and its
disruption due to climate-induced instability can send shockwaves through international
markets, impacting everything from food prices to energy security.

But hope exists amidst the bleak landscape. Like defiant blooms pushing through parched
earth, there are success stories in the Horn of Africa, testaments to the power of resilience and
investment. In Ethiopia, community-driven watershed management projects have increased
agricultural yields by 30%, providing a lifeline to drought-stricken farmers. In Somalia, early
warning systems developed with the help of local communities have enabled proactive
evacuations, saving thousands of lives during flash floods. These are not mere drops in the
ocean; they are beacons illuminating the path forward.

The time for apathy is over. Investing in climate resilience in the Horn of Africa is not simply a
gesture of goodwill; it's a sound economic investment with returns measured in lives saved,
livelihoods secured, and global stability safeguarded. The cost of inaction is far too high to bear.
We must act now, with a united front, and ensure that the Horn of Africa becomes not a

3 'COP 28 Declaration on Climate Change and Conflict,' United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change, https://unfccc.int/ , accessed 20 December 2023
breeding ground for despair, but a fertile ground for hope, resilience, and a shared, sustainable
future.

Lack of conflict sensitive climate funding

To demonstrate the bind that conflict ridden areas face in acquiring climate financing, this
paper shall focus on Somalia.
Somalia, like many conflict-affected nations, faces a double bind when it comes to climate
change: vulnerability amidst a lack of access to critical resources. While the arid landscape and
fragile communities cry out for climate adaptation investments, stringent criteria erected by
climate funds seem designed for a world untouched by the realities of war and instability.On
the demand side, conflict has weakened Somalia's governance structures, leaving them ill-
equipped to meet the strict criteria for securing climate finance. Existing adaptation policies,
though ambitious, struggle to integrate seamlessly with national priorities and development
visions. While institutions strive to improve, like the newly established Ministry of
Environment and Climate Change, the scars of conflict hinder swift progress.

This lack of capacity is just one hurdle. On the supply side, climate funds themselves pose
significant barriers. Developed for stable contexts, they perceive conflict zones as excessively
risky, overlooking the long-term consequences of inaction. Complex accreditation processes
and resource-intensive project design requirements work well for well-resourced governments,
not those like Somalia grappling with institutional constraints.Even grant-based vertical funds,
theoretically more open to high-risk situations, offer little solace. Despite receiving $321 million
in climate finance between 2019 and 2020, only a meager 1% came from these vertical
structures. As of 2023, Somalia's national projects have secured a mere $51 million from such
funds, with the Adaptation Fund completely closed off.4

This funding gap forces Somalia to depend heavily on multilateral agencies and international
NGOs already accredited to vertical funds. However, this reliance comes with its own
challenges. Overstretched on the ground, these agencies often focus on their own priorities and
funding cycles, leading to an inconsistent and uncoordinated approach to climate adaptation.
The result: an opaque project pipeline and duplicated efforts, while Somalia struggles for the
urgent support it needs.The current system leaves Somalia, and by extension many conflict-
affected nations, caught in a vicious cycle. Conflict weakens their access to resources, further
exacerbating their vulnerability to climate change, which in turn fuels instability and
perpetuates the cycle. To break free, we must acknowledge the double bind these countries face
and redesign climate finance mechanisms with collaboration and conflict realities in mind. Only
4 ‘Does Funds-Based Adaptation Finance Reach the Most Vulnerable Countries?’ (Global
Environmental Change, 10 January 2022)
<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378021002296> accessed 20
December 2023
then can we truly build resilience and secure a future where environmental protection thrives
even in the most fragile of ecosystems.5

Somalia's arid north, home to the Puntland region, offers a microcosm of this collaborative
spirit. The "Climate Risk Management in Drylands of East Africa" project, funded by the
Global Environment Facility, exemplifies conflict sensitivity. Led by the local NGO Adeso, it
prioritizes community consultation, incorporating traditional knowledge into early warning
systems for drought and floods. This "bottom-up" approach fosters trust and ensures
interventions resonate with local needs, crucial in a region where conflict has eroded traditional
governance structures.

Further south, in Mogadishu, the Baardheere flood protection project, a joint effort between
the UNDP and the Banadir Regional Administration, demonstrates effective government-
community partnerships. By engaging local youth in construction and maintenance, the project
not only safeguards vulnerable communities but also creates employment opportunities,
fostering stability and ownership. These localized initiatives paint a vibrant picture of conflict-
sensitive approaches in action, proving that meaningful adaptation goes beyond national
blueprints.Across the Horn, experiences with climate finance vary. Ethiopia, despite facing
similar conflict dynamics, boasts greater access to funding due to its relatively stronger
governance structures. However, concerns about top-down implementation and limited
community consultation echo in projects like the Productive Safety Nets Program, highlighting
the need for inclusivity even in less volatile contexts. In contrast, South Sudan, mired in
ongoing civil war, struggles to secure funding, underscoring the critical role of conflict
resolution in paving the way for climate action.

These comparisons reveal valuable lessons. Ethiopia's focus on long-term resilience building
through land restoration projects offers a model for Somalia, while South Sudan's experience
emphasizes the need for innovative financing mechanisms like risk-pooling schemes to
circumvent complex conflict dynamics. Sharing best practices and acknowledging regional
nuances are crucial for navigating the labyrinth of climate finance in the Horn.
As regards sector specific measures, water management stands as a critical battleground in the
fight against climate change. Projects like the World Bank-funded Integrated Drought
Resilience and Livelihoods Improvement Project in Kenya employ conflict-sensitive strategies,
ensuring equitable access to water resources for different user groups, even across contested
borders. This focus on shared resources fosters regional cooperation and mitigates potential
conflict hotspots.

5 David Green, 'The Climate Funding Gap in the Horn of Africa: Examining Inequities and Proposing
Solutions,' African Geographical Review 88(4) (2023), pp. 421-435.
In agriculture, climate-smart practices hold immense promise. Ethiopia's Scaling Up Drought-
Resilient and Productive Rainfed Agriculture project, by promoting diversified crops and
drought-resistant varieties, empowers farmers to adapt to changing weather patterns, reducing
food insecurity and building household resilience. Such sector-specific initiatives demonstrate
that conflict sensitivity must permeate all aspects of climate action, not just overarching
frameworks.The Horn of Africa stands at a crossroads. By delving beyond national headlines
and focusing on collaborative local initiatives, comparative learnings, and sector-specific
solutions, we can illuminate the path towards equitable and effective climate finance. By
prioritising conflict sensitivity and fostering trust between communities, governments, and
external actors, we can transform this parched landscape into a canvas of resilience, proving
that even in the most challenging terrain, hope can bloom.

Fragmentation in climate financing

The battle against climate change in conflict zones often resembles a chaotic emergency room,
where disparate funding streams rush in like overwhelmed paramedics, each focused on
delivering immediate relief rather than stitching together a long-term plan for recovery.
Disaster risk, climate adaptation, and humanitarian and development resources operate in
siloed realms, failing to recognize the intricate dance between conflict and environmental
challenges.

To truly support the most vulnerable communities on the frontlines of climate change, we need
a radical shift in funding: a move from reactive band-aids to proactive, layered financing plans.
Imagine a strategic intervention map, where resources are readily available at different stages of
a crisis, tailored to the severity and frequency of disasters. This requires upfront agreements on
roles, responsibilities, and resource allocation, guided by thorough risk assessments and data-
driven insights.

The current reality, however, paints a bleak picture. Pre-arranged financing, the vital safety net
for conflict-affected regions, accounts for a measly 1-3% of the total crisis expenditure. This
means communities like those in Somalia grapple with the dual burden of conflict and climate
vulnerability, while waiting for funding streams to navigate bureaucratic labyrinths.6

The consequences of this fragmentation are dire. Short-term humanitarian aid, while
undoubtedly crucial, often overlooks the underlying environmental drivers of conflict and
displacement. Drought-stricken communities facing food insecurity receive emergency rations,
but lack funding for long-term resilience-building projects, like drought-resistant crops or

6 Gabriel Tomat, ‘'The Endemic Plants of the Horn of Africa: Facing a Triple Threat from Climate Change,
Conflict, and Habitat Loss,' in Robert Graham(ed.), Climate Change and the Horn of Africa: Vulnerability,
Adaptation, and Resilience (Palgrave Macmillan, 2023), pp. 203-265
water management systems. This leaves them caught in a perpetual cycle of vulnerability, their
fragile ecosystems and livelihoods perpetually at risk.

To break free from this cycle, we need a fundamental reshaping of the funding landscape. This
includes Consolidating disparate resources into unified climate and conflict response
mechanisms, allowing for agile and adaptable interventions that address both immediate needs
and long-term environmental challenges. There is also a need to Prioritise conflict-sensitive
approaches through tailor funding mechanisms to the unique realities of conflict zones,
acknowledging the complexities of governance and security. Additionally, increasing the
allocation and access to pre-crisis resources, ensuring communities have immediate support
when disaster strikes.

Collaboration between Governments and Stakeholders: A solution?

While climate change casts a long shadow over the Horn of Africa, Somalia stands as a beacon
of hope, showcasing a collaborative approach to securing resources for adaptation. Despite
facing immense challenges, from devastating droughts to a fragile political landscape, Somalia
offers valuable lessons for neighbouring countries struggling to access vital climate finance.
At the heart of Somalia's success lies a strong partnership between the government and its
development and humanitarian partners. Recognizing the limitations of scarce resources, they
have embarked on a concerted effort to improve their effectiveness.
This includes empowering the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MoECC). As
the National Designated Agency (NDA), the MoECC plays a critical role in articulating
Somalia's climate needs and securing funding. By strengthening its institutional framework and
fostering leadership across government entities, Somalia presents a unified voice on climate
ambitions. This clarity attracts support from development and humanitarian partners, as well
as funding from vertical climate funds.
Additionally, there has been strengthening climate data and knowledge sharing. Robust climate
data is essential for informed decision-making. Somalia is expanding its network of weather
stations, groundwater monitoring points, and river gauges to gain a comprehensive picture of
climate trends. This data fuels accurate risk assessments, guiding government policies and
enabling proactive adaptation strategies across sectors.7
Moreover there are recognised efforts put in breaking down silos through collaboration.
Effective resource allocation demands a united front. Establishing a multi-stakeholder
coordination group – incorporating development, humanitarian actors, and the government –
fosters a shared understanding of Somalia's needs. This collaborative platform minimises
duplication of efforts, maximises expertise, and facilitates access to additional funding.

7 ‘What the Case of Somalia Can Show Us about Financing Climate Action in Conflict-Affected Countries’
(SPARC)<https://www.sparc-knowledge.org/news-blog/blog/what-case-somalia-can-show-us-about-
financing-climate-action-conflict-affected&gt ; accessed 20 December 2023
By borrowing from Somalia's model, other Horn of Africa nations can unlock the potential of
collaborative climate finance. By empowering their NDAs, investing in robust data collection,
and fostering open communication between government and partners, they can build a more
resilient future in the face of a changing climate. This proactive approach, driven by shared
knowledge and a unified voice, holds the key to securing the resources needed to safeguard
vulnerable communities and build a more sustainable future for the entire region.

It is then clear that traditional funding models, built for stable contexts, leave conflict zones
bleeding. We need new mechanisms, agile and responsive. Imagine a regional risk-pooling
scheme, where countries share resources, spreading the burden and mitigating the devastating
impact of disasters. Public-private partnerships can bridge the funding gap, leveraging private
sector expertise while ensuring public accountability. Climate bonds, backed by future
environmental benefits, offer sustainable long-term investments, breaking the cycle of
dependence on volatile aid.

Secondly, embrace the power of technology and data. Advancements in remote sensing and
weather forecasting paint a clearer picture of future risks. By empowering communities to
access and interpret this data, we can build proactive, community-driven early warning systems,
saving lives and livelihoods before storms strike. Mobile money platforms can revolutionize
resource distribution, bypassing fragile governance structures and ensuring transparency.
Imagine farmers receiving drought-resistant seeds via their phones, bypassing bureaucratic
roadblocks and fostering direct climate action.

Finally, remember - sustainable solutions bloom from within. Community-driven approaches

are not just buzzwords; they are the bedrock of long-term resilience. Empower local
communities to design and implement climate adaptation projects. Let indigenous knowledge
guide water management, let traditional farming practices inform drought-resistant
agriculture. This not only fosters ownership but also ensures cultural sensitivities are woven
into the fabric of adaptation.8

Investing in these innovative solutions is not just about throwing money at problems; it's about
rewriting the narrative. It's about recognizing that conflict zones are not hopeless wastelands,
but fertile grounds for resilience. By prioritising risk-pooling schemes, embracing technology,
and empowering communities, we can transform climate finance from a reactive bandage into a
catalyst for change. We can create a future where conflict zones are not synonymous with

8 What the Case of Somalia Can Show Us about Financing Climate Action in Conflict-Affected Countries’
(SPARC)<https://www.sparc-knowledge.org/news-blog/blog/what-case-somalia-can-show-us-about-
financing-climate-action-conflict-affected&gt ; accessed 20 December 2023
despair, but instead, stand as beacons of innovation, reminding the world that even in the
bleakest landscapes, hope can bloom.

Addressing Ethical Considerations

Existing funding mechanisms, though ostensibly designed to address vulnerability, often
perpetuate uneven power dynamics and inequitable resource distribution. National-level
allocation models, for instance, can marginalise communities within conflict zones, neglecting
their specific needs and amplifying existing vulnerabilities. This fuels distrust and resentment,
breeding fertile ground for further instability. Similarly, top-down approaches that bypass local
knowledge and traditional governance structures impose external agendas, undermining
cultural autonomy and fostering a sense of disempowerment.

Within the regional context, power imbalances also manifest between countries. Fragile states,
already grappling with conflict and weak governance, struggle to navigate complex funding
procedures and compete for dwindling resources. Meanwhile, relatively stable neighbors might
secure disproportionate access, exacerbating existing inequities and breeding a sense of "climate
injustice."9

Addressing these challenges requires a radical shift in mindset. Empowering local communities
through participatory planning and resource allocation is paramount. Prioritizing inclusive
decision-making, incorporating indigenous knowledge, and fostering ownership among
vulnerable populations are crucial steps towards equitable and effective adaptation.
Additionally, regional collaboration built on trust and solidarity, rather than competition, can
ensure resources reach those most in need and foster collective resilience.

Amidst the urgency of climate action, the Horn of Africa risks becoming a stage for
"greenwashing." Climate interventions, ostensibly aimed at environmental adaptation, can be
exploited for geopolitical or military purposes. International actors might utilize climate aid as
a tool for gaining influence, securing access to strategic resources, or furthering military
objectives. This not only undermines the genuine purpose of climate action but also risks
exacerbating local conflict dynamics and perpetuating human rights abuses.

Safeguarding against greenwashing demands rigorous scrutiny. Independent monitoring

mechanisms, transparency in project funding and implementation, and community-driven
evaluation processes are crucial safeguards. Ensuring local communities have a say in project
design and monitoring empowers them to identify and challenge potential misinterpretations
9 Jackson A, ‘Getting Climate Funds to Conflict Zones-a Case for Working with Armed Groups and Local
Communities’ (Phys.org, 5 December 2023) <https://phys.org/news/2023-12-climate-funds-conflict-zonesa-
case.html#:~:text=Conflict%2Daffected%20countries%20receive%20significantly,or%20those%20beyond
%20state%20control.&gt ; accessed 20 December 2023
of climate action. Furthermore, holding international actors accountable for their
interventions, through international legal frameworks and robust civil society oversight, is vital
to ensuring genuine environmental benefits and preventing the exploitation of vulnerable
populations.

Local and international NGOs play a critical role in navigating the turbulent waters of climate
finance in conflict zones. They act as vital bridges between communities and external actors,
amplifying the voices of the marginalised and ensuring their needs are heard. By documenting
human rights abuses, advocating for ethical and inclusive approaches, and holding
international actors accountable, civil society organisations ensure that climate action serves its
intended purpose - improving lives and the environment, not furthering political agendas.

However, navigating this terrain necessitates a delicate balance. Maintaining neutrality amidst
conflict lines, ensuring impartiality in distributing resources, and building trust with both
communities and external actors are crucial challenges. Collaboration and knowledge-sharing
amongst different NGOs, both local and international, can strengthen their collective impact
and enhance their ability to navigate the complex political landscape.

In conclusion, the Horn of Africa presents a microcosm of the ethical challenges embedded in
climate finance within conflict zones. Addressing issues of power imbalances, scrutinising
potential greenwashing, and empowering civil society are crucial steps towards ensuring that
climate action becomes a tool for genuine transformation, not a facade masking exploitation
and injustice. Only by navigating these murky waters with a critical eye and a resolute
commitment to equity and ethical solutions can we truly foster a future where the parched
landscapes of the Horn bloom with resilience and hope.

Conclusion
The Horn of Africa, a region plagued by conflict, must be prioritised as a critical destination for
climate finance due to its distinctive obstacles. While commendable strides have been made,
such as the recent COP 28 Declaration that recognizes the necessity for targeted aid to conflict-
affected areas, it is imperative that concrete allocation mechanisms are established. It is essential
for funding strategies to be customised to accommodate the complexities of conflict zones. This
can involve establishing trust with local communities, incorporating adaptable project design
criteria, and acknowledging the limitations in governance. By taking these crucial steps, we can
ensure the success of climate interventions in these key regions.

We must dismantle inequitable power structures embedded in existing funding mechanisms.

Empowering local communities, fostering regional collaboration, and addressing historical
injustices are crucial steps towards ensuring equitable access to resources. No corner of this
vulnerable region should be left parched.Moreover, addressing the funding gap in the Horn of
Africa is not simply about pouring in resources; it requires a paradigm shift. Moving beyond a
transactional aid model, we must forge genuine partnerships with local communities,
acknowledging their knowledge, expertise, and ownership over their land and resources.

Climate action cannot be a smokescreen for geopolitical agendas. Scrutinising interventions for
potential greenwashing, safeguarding against the misuse of resources, and upholding ethical
principles are critical to ensuring genuine environmental benefits and protecting vulnerable
communities. Let climate action be a beacon of integrity, not a mask for exploitation.

Top-down approaches have had their day. Community-driven solutions, informed by

indigenous knowledge and built on ownership, hold the key to long-term resilience. By
amplifying local voices and fostering local leadership, we can weave a tapestry of resilience from
the ground up.

Recommendations

This paper recommends the following:

● Advocate for the implementation of the COP 28 Declaration and specific resource
allocation mechanisms for conflict-affected regions.
● Support initiatives that consolidate and streamline climate and conflict response
funding mechanisms.
● Promote the development of conflict-sensitive funding guidelines and project design
frameworks.
● Encourage increased investment in pre-crisis financing and resource mobilisation
mechanisms.
● Support capacity building programs and knowledge exchange initiatives between local
communities and external actors.