BERLIN CLIMATE AND SECURITY CONFERENCE 2026 (BCSC 2026)

Climate security is not a challenge that any single institution or sector can address alone. It requires different perspectives, shared responsibility and a willingness to ask difficult questions about whose security we prioritise, how we finance prevention and whether communities have a meaningful say in the decisions that affect them. One of the things I appreciated about the Berlin Climate and Security Conference (BCSC) 2026 was the diversity of voices in the room. Government representatives, researchers, civil society organisations, international institutions, private companies and practitioners who brought different perspectives to a conversation that needs all of us.

The conference also got the balance right between the main programme and more focused thematic side events. These smaller, targeted discussions created room to get into the details, exchange practical experiences and explore what solutions might look like in different contexts. From financing resilience in fragile settings to human security, climate-induced displacement, and the relationship between climate change and non-state armed groups, there was plenty to take away.

What does security mean, and whose security comes first?

Human security came up repeatedly in discussions about how climate change fits into the wider security agenda. There was a strong case for looking beyond military capabilities and traditional security responses to consider what makes people feel and live securely: their livelihoods, access to land and water, economic opportunities and the institutions they depend on.

This is particularly important in fragile and conflict-affected settings, where climate pressures interact with existing tensions, inequalities and governance challenges. Through our work at Life & Peace Institute particularly in border areas across the Horn of Africa, we see how these wider security dynamics shape people’s everyday lives. The Karamoja cluster is one example, where recurring droughts, competition over pasture and water, and cross border governance challenges intersect with existing conflict dynamics and threaten livelihoods. These experiences reinforce the importance of looking at climate security through a human security lens. Climate change does not automatically lead to conflict, much depends on how resources are managed, whose interests are considered and how institutions respond when pressures mount.

The challenge is making sure that human security is more than a concept we agree on in conference rooms. How does it influence national security priorities? How do we make prevention a priority when immediate threats tend to attract more political attention? And how do we ensure that security responses address the concerns people themselves identify?

Climate security-Everyone's business, but whose responsibility?

Another question that stayed with me was where climate security actually sits within government. Is it an environment issue, a foreign policy concern, a defence priority, or a matter for interior and local government? And, perhaps more importantly, who controls the resources to do something about it?

Climate security cuts across all these areas, yet our institutions and budgets are often organised in silos. Environmental experts need to understand the security implications of their work, just as security institutions need to take climate risks seriously. Better coordination is essential, but it cannot stop at bringing the right people around a table.

Someone still needs to take responsibility, decisions need to be made, and resources need to follow.

There is an opportunity to anchor climate security within existing national structures. But this raises further questions about who leads, how competing priorities are managed and whether the institutions responsible have the mandate and budgets to act. Otherwise, we risk a situation where climate security is everyone's concern on paper, but no one's responsibility in practice.

The money question

Financing was another major theme running through the discussions. How do we pay for prevention and resilience in places where risks are high, institutions are under pressure and conventional investment models often struggle to work?

As observed by one of the contributors, “climate finance is designed for stability and not for fragility.”

One useful observation was that the challenge is not always a complete absence of funding. It can also be about the kinds of projects that attract investment, how risks are assessed and whether funding mechanisms are designed for the realities of fragile and conflict-affected settings.

For local organisations, the barriers can be even more difficult to navigate. Short funding cycles, tightly earmarked budgets and limited access to funding decisions can leave those closest to the challenges struggling to secure resources for the work they know is needed.

This left me thinking: Are we financing the needs of communities, or the opportunities that funding institutions find easiest to support?

There were encouraging discussions about small grants, blended finance, community-led initiatives and ways to make resilience investments more attractive. But how do we move promising local initiatives beyond small, short-term projects? How do we create funding mechanisms that are flexible enough for fragile settings while still meeting accountability requirements? And how do we ensure that local organisations have a say not only in implementing projects, but also in deciding where the money goes?

These are questions worth carrying into our work long after the conference.

Community ownership – Beyond having a seat at the table

Community ownership was another recurring theme. There is growing recognition that local knowledge and experience matter, but recognition alone does not necessarily translate into influence.

Communities are often asked to explain the challenges they face, yet have much less say in setting priorities, shaping interventions or deciding how resources are allocated. Civil society organisations can find themselves in a similar position, expected to deliver results without having a meaningful role in the decisions that shape their work.

During the roundtable discussion: “A Fragile Balance, Climate Change, Non-State Armed Groups, and Security in Lake Chad”, in which I sat as a panellist sharing experiences from the Horn of Africa, I highlighted the need to move beyond consultation as an end in itself, and ensure that local voices meaningfully shape decisions, priorities and responses to climate and security challenges. What matters is whether community priorities influence policies, budgets and programmes, and whether communities receive feedback on what happens to the issues they raise.

This is particularly relevant in borderlands and fragile settings, where traditional institutions, local peace structures and community-based early-warning systems can offer valuable insights. Our work in Moyale, along the Kenya–Ethiopia border, offers a practical example of what this can look like. During a recent visit to Sololo, we reflected on the role of cross-border peace committees in supporting peacebuilding across communities. Working alongside local government structures, these committees help communicate early warnings of climate and conflict-related risks, facilitate dialogue and reconciliation, and support agreements on resource sharing. They also draw on traditional approaches to resolving disputes, including established cross-border retribution arrangements, with guidance and support from local authorities.

These locally grounded mechanisms demonstrate how community institutions, when recognised and supported by formal governance structures, can contribute to peaceful relations and cooperation over shared resources. One tangible example is the reopening of the cross-border market, Dukale. Such experiences remind us that effective climate security responses are not built solely through formal policies or security interventions. They also depend on recognising existing local capacities and connecting community knowledge with scientific evidence and formal decision-making systems, so that local experience informs the responses that affect people's lives and livelihoods.

The opportunity is to connect this knowledge with scientific evidence and formal decision-making systems, rather than treating them as separate worlds.

Localisation must mean more than inviting local actors into the room. It must also mean giving them a meaningful role in defining the problem as they understand it, shaping the response using a language they understand and influencing the resources available to address it.

Leaving Berlin with more questions and plenty to build on

I left BCSC 2026 feeling positive about the conversations and the connections made, but also aware of how much work remains. We have made progress in recognising the links between climate change, peace and security. The harder part is changing how institutions work, how funding is allocated and how decisions are made.

How do we make prevention pay? How do we get climate security onto the desks of the people who control national budgets and security priorities? How do we ensure that funding reaches the places where it is most needed? And how do we make community ownership visible in actual decisions, rather than just in our language?

No single conference can answer all these questions. But bringing different actors together to wrestle with them is important.

For me, one of the greatest values of BCSC is the opportunity to connect with people approaching similar challenges from different parts of the world. The exchange of ideas, the chance to learn from experiences beyond our own contexts and the relationships that develop along the way can open doors to future collaboration. Just as importantly, the conference helps keep climate security on the agenda and gives visibility to issues that can easily be overshadowed by more immediate political and security concerns.

Now comes the part that matters most; taking these conversations back into our work, testing ideas, building partnerships and seeing what can be done differently.

I left Berlin encouraged by what is possible, with a few more contacts to follow up on and, certainly, a few more questions to keep asking.

Because the real test of progress is not how well we talk about climate security, but whether our conversations change the decisions we make, where resources go and how communities experience security in their everyday lives.