TWN Info Service on Climate Change (Apr26/05)
10 April 2026
Third World Network

Santiago Network Advisory Board debate ‘conflict-sensitivity’ in loss and damage response

Kuala Lumpur, 10 April, (Jinghann Hong) – Divergences among Advisory Board members over the inclusion of a conflict-sensitivity principle and indicator in the Santiago Network Results Framework, particularly around its alignment with the Network’s mandate and scope, arose during the 6th meeting of the Santiago Network Advisory Board (SNAB.6) from 24–26 March 2026, held in Geneva, Switzerland.

[The Advisory Board at its 3rd meeting had approved an interim Results Framework, which defined what results the Santiago Network (Network) will measure. Subsequently, at the SNAB.5 meeting in September 2025, following the adoption of the Network strategy for 2026 to 2028, the Advisory Board requested the Secretariat to develop a proposal to adjust and align the Results Framework with the new strategy by early 2026. As for the Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability, and Learning (MEAL) framework, it is under current development to be presented at SNAB.7, and will elaborate how the results are monitored, evaluated, and used for learning.]

On the first day of SNAB.6, Co-Chair Leona Hollasch (Germany) recalled that Advisory Board members had discussed the draft of the Results Framework during the informal meeting held on 23 March 2026, and had been invited to provide additional written feedback on specific results and indicators. She then opened the floor for the Secretariat to present the newly revised draft of the Results Framework, with incorporated comments received.

Highlighting the consultative process to incorporate input from relevant stakeholders [including the Advisory Board, the Network members, national liaisons, the Warsaw International Mechanism Executive Committee (WIM ExCom), and the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD)], the Secretariat presented a summary of the discussion held on 23^rd March.

The actual revised Results Framework draft was only circulated later in the day for discussion on 24^th March, where it emerged that over 20 new results and indicators were proposed by Advisory Board members in their comments.

Amongst these were the principle and indicator on ‘conflict-sensitivity', which was included. This prompted strong reactions from developing country members, who expressed concerns that such references went beyond the agreed mandate of the Network.

The divergence between developing and developed country Advisory Board members was ultimately resolved through a compromise, whereby explicit references to ‘conflict-sensitivity’ were removed from the Results Framework working paper to enable it for adoption. Instead, it was agreed that the matter of ‘conflict-sensitivity’ be reflected under the “risk management” approach agreed on in the Network strategy 2026-2028. This was then referenced in the language of the adopted SNAB.6 decision, which refers to considering“the specificities of affected communities, local contexts, vulnerabilities and risks”[emphasis added], under the future review of the technical assistance guidelines and procedures.

[On page 11 of the Santiago Network strategy 2026-2028 adopted on 3 September 2025, para 27 reads: “Risk management. With a focus on delivering timely technical assistance to the frontline, the Santiago network wants to build a risk-aware culture and sound risk management practices that are also appropriate for the developing countries and communities it serves. The Santiago network’s risk management approach will combine technical assistance request-level risk management based on its co-hosts’ policies, with organization-level risk identification, assessment, mitigation and reporting undertaken through development of a risk register and risk-opportunity matrix, to be periodically reported to the Advisory Board from 2026. The Santiago network will operate in accordance with the ‘do no harm’ principle, while integrating the Conflict-Sensitive Programme Management (CSPM) approach and taking into account the specificities of affected communities, local contexts, and existing vulnerabilities including in the context of fragile and conflict affected countries”.]

In the SNAB.6 decision adopted in Geneva, the Advisory Board “approved the revised Santiago Network Results Framework…, aligned with the Santiago Network Strategy 2026–2028.”

Further, it was also agreed that the ‘Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability and Learning (MEAL) Framework’ will be developed by the Secretariat and considered by the Advisory Board of the Santiago Network at its 7^th  meeting, which will be held in Tokyo, Japan, from 29 September to 1 October 2026, with an informal meeting on Monday, 28 September 2026.

Key highlights of interventions

Angela Rivera made a statement for the record on behalf of Latin American countries, underlining strong concerns with the issue of conflict-sensitivity, which she identified as a “red line.”

First, she stressed that this inclusion goes beyond the mandate agreed multilaterally at the UNFCCC’s Subsidiary Bodies (SBs) sessions and at the COP. She said that both the Network and the FRLD were established to address loss and damage arising from the adverse effects of climate change, including extreme weather events and slow onset events. Introducing elements related to conflict risks expanded the scope [of the Network and the FRLD] beyond the climate regime, thereby diluting the focus and altering the original purpose of these mechanisms.

Second, she underscored the importance of “preserving the integrity of climate finance”, noting that the inclusion of conflict-related considerations could open the door to counting resources aimed at humanitarian assistance, post-conflict reconstruction, or geopolitical responses as loss and damage finance. This would undermine the principle of additionality and create risks of double counting, ultimately affecting the credibility of the Financial Mechanisms, including technical assistance delivery under the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement.

Third, she raised concerns that this proposal could generate undue competition for already limited resources, noting that the Network and other funding mechanisms are intended to prioritise developing countries that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change, and that “expanding the scope to include conflict-related dimensions risks diverting attention and resources away from this core priority”.

Fourth, she emphasised the need to maintain coherence with existing international frameworks, noting that loss and damage associated with conflict is already addressed under other bodies of law, including international humanitarian law, human rights law, and refugee and migration frameworks, and that “blurring these boundaries may lead to duplication, fragmentation, and reduced effectiveness across systems”.

Finally, while recognizing that climate impacts may occur in contexts affected by conflict, she stressed that “support provided under the Santiago Network must ensure clear and traceable attribution to climate-related loss and damage”, and so should not extend to addressing conflict situations as such. In line with the principles of the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement, including equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, she stressed further that the Network should remain focused on its core mission of responding to the specific vulnerabilities arising from the adverse effects of climate change in all developing countries.

Rivera concluded by stating that she hoped this clarified why there are concerns with the inclusion of the principle and indicator. She added further that it is important to have a more in-depth discussion, and recognising that there is some referencing in the strategy under the risk component, she cautioned that “if we are going to talk about one approach, then we need to talk about all approaches that already exist.”

Camila Rodríguez (Dominican Republic) emphasized that while it is it is important for the Network to be able to work in conflict-affected and fragile states, “this does not constitute a principle of the framework, nor is it a principle reflected in the agreed [Santiago Network] strategy”. In contrast, she underscored that principles such as ‘demand-drivenness’ and ‘gender and inclusion’ already are. She suggested that references to conflict-affected contexts could instead be captured under the broader focus on vulnerability, noting that “we need to make sure our strategies and the way we work can serve conflict-afflicted states.”

In a later intervention, Rodríguez recalled that the Network was established because of the clear necessity for countries to access context-specific technical assistance to avert, minimize, and address loss and damage globally, noting that country-specific approaches are extremely relevant given the diversity of needs. She reiterated that the effort to build a Network that is country-owned, stressing that countries and local communities are best placed to determine what type of support they need.

Underlining the importance of ensuring that any decisions and language adopted reflect the kind of network that Parties aim to build, and further added that the agreed Network Strategy comes with a Results Framework, which must operationally respond to the strategy, its principles, and the targets set therein. She suggested that conflict-sensitivity was best addressed in the guidelines for accessing technical assistance, which specify how to match country requests with organizations, bodies, networks and experts (OBNEs), capable of responding, thus allowing for the necessary level of specificity for countries with distinct needs.

Muriel Gschwend (Switzerland) expressed disappointment that the reference to a fragility- conflict- and violence-sensitive approach had been removed from the Results Framework, noting particular concern that it was not even possible to refer to the ‘do no harm’ principle.

Emphasising that ‘conflict-sensitivity’ and ‘do no harm’ principles are not about creating separate UNFCCC country categories, but instead are phenomena  changing over time, occurring on a daily basis, and can concern all countries and regions, she emphasised that these approaches are meant to ensure that support remains inclusive, does no harm, reaches those most in need, and can potentially contribute to more peaceful societies. In practice, this involves understanding the context before responding to a technical assistance request and when selecting OBNEs, ensuring they have the relevant expertise and experience, and incorporating adaptive management mechanisms as the context evolves.

She highlighted the use of conflict-sensitivity principles by climate funds such as the Global Environment Facility, including guiding operational principles and gap analyses. On the point made about borrowing concepts from the humanitarian sector, she noted that “that is a totally artificial discussion,” emphasising that context will guide this, and “then, it doesn't matter whether it's humanitarian, development, or climate action.”

Referring to the proposed Advisory Board decision text which does not speak to the concept, she said that this is “difficult to accept”. Gschwend hoped that in future discussions, the Advisory Board members can start to familiarise themselves with the concept to see how it can be operationalised and concluded that “it will find its way in one way or another into the MEAL framework, and that also we look at it in very operational and concrete terms, how the technical assistance guidelines can be revised, taking into account these aspects.”

Stella Brożek-Everaert wanted to clarify the position of the European Union [EU]. She said that the concept of conflict-sensitivity in fragile settings for the EU is a framework that assesses the capacity of a community, country, or system to anticipate, manage, and deal with risks, vulnerabilities, and emerging threat, and noted that this can include the type of impacts addressed in the space of loss and damage, making it interrelated.

She emphasised that fragility is multidimensional and not specific to any one country, although in practice they may engage with countries that exhibit these aspects. It can occur at regional levels or within very local, specific communities, and is not necessarily the same as a conflict context, though the two can be interlinked and may contribute to and exacerbate one another. Adding further, she also stressed that fragility is not limited to low-income countries but can be present across all types of economies.

She explained further that the reason for including a reference to conflict-sensitivity in the Results Framework was that the Santiago Network strategy already prioritises risk management as an institutional priority. This focus ensures that technical assistance delivery is timely and reaches frontline communities, in line with earlier points made about context specificity and ensuring support is country-driven and needs-driven. She also highlighted that the strategy already emphasises building a risk-aware culture, sound risk management practices, and a commitment to the ‘do no harm’ principle while integrating conflict-sensitive program management approaches.

Acknowledging the ongoing discussion about translating these concepts into the technical assistance guidelines, Brożek-Everaert further noted that while a formal risk framework is not yet in place, it would be useful to indicate in the Results Framework where these principles are considered. She further emphasised that the learning process from technical assistance delivery will inform the MEAL framework and allow these principles to be embedded and mainstreamed over time, similar to approaches already adopted for gender and inclusivity, noting that the intention is to “add some more flesh and spell out how the ‘do no harm’ principle is guiding out approaches”.

She also noted that the compromise being sought integrates risk management principles into the Results Framework while leaving space to operationalise them in the technical assistance guidelines. Expressing satisfaction with the framing of the final text, she reiterated the strong recommendation for the Advisory Board to continue this conversation in future meetings.