Implementing climate-focused dialogue and mediation approaches in practice

In Hawija, climate change has negatively affected the availability of water. The dialogue engagement focused on the increased pressure on water resources and the absence of fair and balanced water management, distribution and sharing agreements. At the same time, we addressed the lack of trust in the authorities and between communities, as well as violations such as the installation of illegal water pumps. The dialogue sessions enabled the diverse stakeholders to discuss their views and interests and ultimately reach a water-sharing agreement.

In Basra, in the south of Iraq, climate change impacts have led to displacement and migration. The loss of livelihoods, growing competition over scarce resources and increased pressure on services due to internal migration and displacement, in combination with weak government capacities, low levels of trust in the authorities and lack of conflict management mechanisms, led to conflict between IDPs and host communities in Zubair (Al-Fidha neighbourhood). Accordingly, the dialogue engagement sought to address conflicts over resources, different tribal/cultural practices and conflict management mechanisms.

In Kalar, a region in north-eastern Iraqi Kurdistan marked by long-standing tensions and conflicts, several villages face severe water scarcity. For years, disputes over diminishing water resources, illegal tapping and water allocation violations along the Balajo irrigation channel have exacerbated hostilities, deepening divides and fostering mistrust. The lack of water has contributed to people being displaced from their homes. Climate change has led to more heatwaves and less rainfall, further reducing water availability. Therefore, the need to reduce tensions and increase cooperation among villages along the Balajo irrigation channel has become even more urgent. The dialogue process focused on reducing tensions and increasing cooperation among villages along the Balajo irrigation channel.

In Tal Afar, climate change has intensified challenges related to water resources. The dialogue engagement addressed the growing pressure on these resources, alongside the absence of fair distribution agreements and efficient resource management. Limited trust in local authorities and weak government capacities have further complicated the situation. The dialogue specifically focused on conflict prevention, aiming to identify and mitigate potential conflicts arising from the intersection of climate change, illegal water wells (used for adaptation purposes) and the exploitation of water resources.

The case study below offers a glimpse into how a dialogue can lead to changed perceptions among communities and the identification of shared challenges.

Farmers in Dhi Qar and Maysan governorates are experiencing frequent heatwaves and water shortages, leading to crop failures and livestock losses. Many young farmers are abandoning their farms and migrating to urban centres like Basra, where they end up in informal settlements, have very limited access to basic services or job opportunities, and risk being drawn into illicit economies or violence. This urbanisation puts a strain on local services and exacerbates tensions between new arrivals and host communities, often escalating into violence, which local governments struggle to manage due to low levels of trust and limited conflict resolution mechanisms. We began by listening to the needs of the new arrivals and the host communities. Separate sessions were held where members of both groups were able to share their experiences, needs and grievances. It quickly became clear that each had their own specific fears and concerns. Host communities accused new arrivals of bringing tribal conflicts and crime to their city. New arrivals reported facing discrimination and violence. As a next step, we organised dialogues between various communities on a variety of topics, mainly focusing on individual and collective fears and concerns, but also on the effects of climate change and how to support a common approach to these issues. Underlying this approach is the assumption that dialogue can help to overcome these feelings of aversion, foster understanding of diverse perspectives and encourage peer learning. Through dialogue, participants are given the space to work towards a common understanding, break down stereotypes and build meaningful relationships. This dynamic could also be observed among the participants in the dialogue in Al-Zubair. During the dialogue, both groups started to identify shared needs and risks to their livelihoods such as lack of services, unemployment and school kidnappings. Participants also recognised climate change as a shared challenge that exacerbates crop failure and water scarcity and increases the need for electricity, especially for air conditioning in the warmer months. Lastly, women from both communities reported an increased threat of gender-based violence, suggesting that this rise in violence is related to the climate-induced loss of livelihoods and lack of future prospects.

As conflicts escalate to higher levels, mediation becomes more appropriate. By this stage, conflict has intensified, and a multi-partial third party is often necessary to facilitate structured negotiations, manage emotions and guide the parties toward a mutually acceptable agreement. In these fully escalated violent conflicts, when other forms of intervention such as conflict mediation or arbitration are required, dialogue can be useful as a complementary tool.

The case study below provides an example of an integrated approach that incorporates climate and environmental concerns into the dialogue and mediation process, thereby improving community relations and bringing an end to trespassing.

In Hawija, climate change has negatively affected the availability of water. The dialogue process therefore focused on the increased pressure on water resources and the absence of fair and balanced water management, distribution and sharing agreements. At the same time, we addressed the lack of trust in authorities and between communities and violations such as the installation of illegal water pumps.

The first step in the dialogue process focused on improving relationships between the villages involved. Through initial meetings, trust between the communities was regained without yet focusing on solutions. The sessions contributed to changes in behaviour, as those who were acting illegally began to see the impact of their actions on others who live further away from the water source. By encouraging these participants to develop more empathy for others, the mediator/facilitator managed to win their approval for a continuation of the process.

More sessions were then held to brainstorm possible solutions with input from technical experts and the facilitator. In situations where participants are still unable to provide solutions to a specific issue, presenting more information and options for consideration may be helpful. As relationships improved, formulating a shared objective proved to be useful for the continuation of the process. Empowering participants to find their own solutions proved more effective than solely providing a single solution. Therefore, putting an end to trespassing between villages, as this results in inequitable water-sharing, was identified as a joint objective for the process. This facilitated a participatory approach in which a joint solution was adopted.

Local authorities that were willing to address the violations and collaborate with the communities then joined the process. As a sign of their readiness for a jointly formulated water-sharing agreement, the local authorities started a campaign to eliminate illegal access to the irrigation channel and protect local water sources. This, in turn, helped to build trust between the communities and the local authorities.

This integrated approach demonstrates how trust-building and practical action on an environmental/climate-related issue are mutually reinforcing. Without the initial steps to build trust between the communities as part of the process, it would not have been possible to jointly identify a solution and present this to the local authorities. In turn, the local authorities’ efforts to eliminate illegal access contributed to further trust-building and paved the way for more innovative solutions to the water scarcity faced by the communities.

While connecting these levels is often challenging, some practical approaches to achieving this linkage are outlined below:

• Framing community-specific climate impacts as part of larger narratives, such as national security, adaptation strategies or economic stability, can help to ensure that local concerns resonate with national and international interests. However, connecting these issues to sensitive topics like national security can also be challenging and requires careful handling.

• By demonstrating how local-level insights contribute to national climate goals, higher-level stakeholders are more likely to engage and build political commitment to support local action.

• Ensuring an inclusive demographic composition and representation of various political stakeholders allows for a balanced approach that increases the relevance for national stakeholders, facilitating engagement.

• It is often necessary to bridge gaps between the community level and governmental authorities. Convening governmental authorities in multi-level round tables and presenting effective solutions from the local level – such as inviting local stakeholders or sharing insights from local dialogues – can help bridge the gap. These efforts help sensitise national-level stakeholders to the importance of participatory, locally driven solutions and can also help close the gap between policy development and implementation on the ground.

• In addition, involving trusted intermediaries, like local leaders or NGOs, can help bridge these gaps by representing local concerns in higher-level discussions and supporting the multiplication of successful approaches in other contexts.

• Engaging different levels in drafting recommendations for policymaking and decision-making through coordinated efforts supports the exchange of best practices and success stories and helps bridge potential gaps between national policy and local implementation so that national climate security strategies are informed by and responsive to local realities and challenges.

• At times, it may be helpful to involve international organisations directly or keep them in a background role: Involving international organisations directly can be beneficial when their presence lends credibility or opens access to additional resources. However, in sensitive or trust-dependent dialogues, it may be preferable to keep them in a background role in which they provide support without directly participating, to maintain confidentiality and local trust. Additionally, the level of involvement can impact an organisation’s willingness to engage; some may prefer limited roles as advisers or supporters rather than as direct participants. Tailoring their involvement to suit the needs and comfort levels of local participants ensures that international contributions are both effective and contextually appropriate.

• In contexts where participants may be hesitant to speak openly in front of higher-level officials, facilitators can employ methods like private briefings, anonymous contributions or smaller breakout discussions. This enables local voices to be heard without fear of repercussions, preserving the integrity of community insights.

• Facilitating higher-level round tables while also engaging in technical exchanges and informal meetings on different levels improves the implementation of coordination efforts and solution-oriented approaches.

In Al-Zubair, Basra, relevant local and national government representatives were involved in the social pact reached as the outcome of the dialogues. Their participation helped to align local actions with national priorities. As the facilitator from Zubair noted, “Involving national government representatives was key to our success. It ensured that our local actions were aligned with national policies and that we had the necessary support.”

Iraq’s evolving climate policy landscape offers valuable insights into how national frameworks can serve as a basis for broader dialogue and coordinated climate action across levels. The development of Iraq’s Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), along with the subsequent Green Paper, reflects a growing commitment to addressing climate risks and reducing emissions in alignment with international goals. These strategies introduce important policy directions, including regulating well-drilling, promoting efficient irrigation systems, and setting water usage limits.

The Green Paper – developed by the Ministry of Environment in collaboration with other national institutions and supported by international partners – marks an important step in shaping Iraq’s long-term climate vision. It outlines strategic priorities for adaptation and mitigation and provides a foundation for future policy and investment planning.

At the same time, the process highlights the importance of further strengthening the link between national-level strategies and local-level needs, perspectives and dialogues. There is an opportunity to deepen the operational aspects of implementation, enhance coordination between ministries, and create clearer pathways for community-level engagement. Building inclusive governance mechanisms, reinforcing institutional mandates, and ensuring sustainable financing can help translate national climate commitments into effective, locally grounded action.

Women face heightened vulnerabilities due to unequal access to resources, traditional gender roles and limited decision-making power. For instance, women are often disproportionately affected by climate change, particularly if their livelihoods are tied to agricultural and household roles. Climate-induced economic hardships can also lead to increased domestic violence, further exacerbating their vulnerability. Additionally, climate-related displacement significantly impacts women more than men, as it disrupts their stability and poses unique challenges related to hygiene and mental and physical health. On the other hand, men might experience increased militarisation and conflict as a direct result of resource scarcity and economic pressures. Empowering women in decision-making, promoting access to resources, and addressing gender-specific needs in adaptation strategies are essential. This includes ensuring that women’s voices are heard in local governance and climate resilience planning, as well as providing targeted support for women-led initiatives that enhance community adaptation and resilience. In addition, gender scholars have found that gender (in)equality is strongly associated with instability and conflict: the International Union for Conservation of Nature has demonstrated that countries with significant gender inequality scores are more likely to face instability, conflict and heightened vulnerabilities to climate issues. Gender issues therefore have a key role to play in the formulation of effective policies for adaptation, mitigation and conflict resolution.

Young people in agricultural communities are particularly at risk of losing their livelihoods due to climate impacts, as they often work in sectors that are highly susceptible to environmental changes, such as agriculture and informal labour. These economic pressures, combined with limited alternative opportunities, can lead to increased migration and displacement as young people seek stability and viable livelihoods elsewhere. This demographic shift can weaken community structures and lead to loss of cultural heritage and social cohesion. To mitigate these risks, creating employment opportunities, strengthening education systems and empowering youth participation in climate adaptation and resilience-building efforts are critical. Youth engagement helps not only in harnessing their innovative potential but also in ensuring long-term sustainability of climate actions.

Marginalised groups, including ethnic minorities and people with disabilities, often face exclusion and discrimination, which increases their vulnerability to climate change. These groups may have less access to the essential resources, information and support systems needed for an effective response to climate challenges. It is crucial to address their specific needs and actively involve them in adaptation efforts. Inclusive strategies that prioritise equity and social justice can help to reduce vulnerability and foster resilience among the most affected populations.

In this phase, the facilitator establishes jointly with the participants the ground rules for respectful communication. Participants are then encouraged to present their perspectives and needs. For example, in a dialogue related to climate change and environmental issues, participants may express concerns about how diminishing water sources affect their livelihoods. To help organise the discussion, facilitation tools such as summarising statements and visualising issues (e.g. using maps to highlight water sources or areas affected by climate change) can be used.

A key aspect of this phase is to acknowledge and address underlying feelings, concerns, fears and needs of all parties. This emotional layer often plays a significant role in how people engage with each other and the issues at hand, so understanding these deeper concerns can foster empathy and trust. For example, in a dialogue related to water scarcity, participants could conduct a field visit to the areas most affected by climate change to see how it affects the communities’ livelihoods. The facilitator can use tools such as open-ended and circular questions, reframing and mirroring to help participants reflect on their own and others’ perspectives.

At this stage, the focus shifts to generating potential solutions, with an emphasis on creating an open space for brainstorming. During this phase, it is crucial not to evaluate options too early, as the goal is to encourage creative thinking and the generation of a wide range of alternatives. For example, in mediation and dialogue processes related to water scarcity, participants might brainstorm alternatives such as modern irrigation systems, adaptation plans and complaint mechanisms. Facilitation tools such as brainstorming and guiding participants to explore alternatives without immediately evaluating them are key to this phase. Expert inputs can help the process by providing additional and informed options.

In this final phase, the focus shifts to discussing and evaluating the options that have been generated. Before this discussion, it is important to prepare a list of criteria that will help in evaluating the feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed solutions. For example, in a process between farmers and local governmental authorities, the group might evaluate the potential solutions such as introducing drought-resistant crops, adjusting planting schedules, or creating water conservation systems. The criteria for evaluation might include factors such as cost, ease of implementation, potential for increasing food security, and environmental stability. This step is crucial for narrowing down the alternatives to identify the most viable options, ensuring that the solutions are practical and widely accepted by the participants.

For example, free-flow discussions work well for smaller groups addressing community concerns, such as the impact of droughts on livelihoods, because the informal setting encourages open sharing of personal experiences on a broad issue that affects everyone. As long as the topic is not so sensitive that it prevents participants from acknowledging others’ perspectives, it can foster a shared space where individuals connect through their experiences and feel encouraged to contribute.

In more complex settings, structured approaches like round-robin discussions ensure that all voices are heard. This can be particularly useful in dialogues where tensions arise – such as between host communities and climate-displaced communities accusing each other of insecurity or violence – by creating space for each participant to share their perspectives.

Similarly, small breakout groups encourage brainstorming and help prevent dominant voices from taking over the discussion, thereby making it easier for some people to speak. These groups also allow for deeper, more focused exploration of complex issues. For instance, in a dialogue about water scarcity, smaller groups can explore specific solutions such as improving irrigation systems or implementing rainwater harvesting techniques. Discussing these complex problems in smaller breakout groups can lead to a wider range of potential solutions and more inclusive participation.

Flexibility and adaptability play an important role in facilitation, allowing facilitators to respond to the dynamic nature of dialogue and mediation processes. It can be helpful to adjust approaches based on participants’ needs or feedback. This may involve adapting facilitation tools, formats or agendas as needed to maintain engagement and achieve desired outcomes.

Capacity-building activities equip participants with the skills and knowledge needed to implement dialogue outcomes and adapt to changing conditions. These activities can include training workshops, technical assistance and peer learning exchanges.

• In Kalar, capacity-building training on advocacy, climate-conflict mediation and action planning complemented the dialogue process. Participants gained practical skills to implement agreed actions and became agents of change within their communities.

• In Tal Afar, capacity-building training focused on climate-conflict mediation, equipping stakeholders with tools to address climate-related tensions. As the facilitator from Tal Afar explained, “The capacity-building training was essential for empowering the community. Participants learned practical skills and strategies that they could apply to adapt to climate change-related tensions and conflicts.”

• The facilitators and experts also reported that peer exchanges and expert support ensure that agreements effectively address identified conflicts, mobilising communities to engage and leveraging diverse expertise.

Awareness-raising activities build broader support for dialogue outcomes and ensure that the wider community is informed and involved, helping to build trust and ownership. These activities can include publicity campaigns, field visits, community meetings and participatory planning processes.

• As the facilitator from Al-Zubair explained, “The awareness-raising campaigns were crucial for building community support. They helped to inform the wider community about our dialogue.”

• Given the widespread misinformation and lack of awareness about climate change, as observed across multiple operational locations, a short film addressing the critical issue of climate change was produced. The film serves as a call to action, urging citizens to be more conscious of their water usage.

• As part of the project, we also organised joint field visits by upstream and downstream communities to enable them to gain a shared understanding of the impact of water-sharing practices.

Rehabilitation activities can be crucial for addressing communities’ immediate and urgent needs for climate adaptation and mitigation. These activities can involve infrastructure development, technical assistance in water management systems and reconstruction.

• In Hawija, the water directorate provided technical support to maintain the pumps for a water station and prepared a submersible well pump, connecting it to the water network. This initiative was jointly developed during the dialogue engagement. The water pump now serves a population of 7,000 and has provided access to water for the most remote village, which previously lacked access due to weak water flow and maintenance issues.

Participatory: Implementing initiatives selected in a participatory way by the community fosters a stronger sense of ownership and commitment to the outcomes of dialogue processes. It also creates opportunities for collaboration among community members, local authorities and locally engaged non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Inclusive stakeholder engagement – including government agencies, community leaders, civil society organisations and affected communities – helps build trust, amplify diverse voices and enhance the initiative’s legitimacy.

For example, the Hawija water directorate provided technical support to maintain the pumps at a local water station, prepared a submersible well pump and connected it to the network. This maintenance initiative was identified and developed during the dialogue process, ensuring sustainable access to water for various villages. The inclusive approach, involving government representatives, community leaders and local actors, fostered broad support for the initiative. By designating the water directorate as the implementing agency, the initiative fostered local ownership and improved coordination between the directorate, the municipality and the mayor. The mayor’s involvement facilitated discussions across various departments and mobilised resources to address key issues. As a result, the water pump now serves a population of 7,000 and provides water access to the last village in the area, which previously lacked access due to weak water flow and poor maintenance. As the facilitator from Hawija explained, “Engaging all stakeholders was key to our success. It helped to build trust, ensured that all voices were heard and enhanced the legitimacy of the dialogue approach.”

Flexible: By maintaining flexibility, communities involved in dialogue and mediation processes can better identify and prioritise concrete initiatives – such as small-scale rehabilitation projects – that support the implementation of certain outcomes in mediated agreement. This approach also helps to ensure that these initiatives remain responsive to local priorities.

For example, allocating resources or creating opportunities to partner with others can support follow-up activities without prescribing their exact form in advance. This empowers communities to shape the initiative based on their specific needs – whether that means conducting advocacy training on agreed clauses, addressing technical or infrastructure challenges, or introducing new agricultural seeds as part of climate action. Leaving the exact focus to be determined locally allows the initiative to remain adaptable and more closely aligned with community priorities.

Adaptable and context-informed: An adaptive approach allows stakeholders to respond to changing conditions and to new information developed and received during the dialogue and mediation processes. This helps to ensure that initiatives remain relevant and respond effectively to changing needs, conflict dynamics and climate patterns. Understanding the specific context in which the initiative is implemented helps to avoid unintended consequences that could reignite tensions or exacerbate vulnerabilities. For example, even when activities are agreed in dialogue, implementing them may still require additional assessments to ensure a conflict-sensitive approach.

For example, in Kalar, the construction of a well providing 98 families across two villages with access to groundwater required ongoing coordination with authorities and relevant directorates. As the facilitator from Kalar explained, “Flexibility and adaptability were crucial for the success of our initiative. Regular coordination allowed us to make necessary adjustments and ensure that our initiative remained relevant and effective.”

• A consensus on an agreement can be reached in an active way by the facilitator asking if participants agree to a proposed solution. Everyone has to agree verbally or by raising their hand. It can also be reached in a passive way. This means that an agreement has been reached if no one rejects it. This can be a powerful way of reframing an agreement as some parties – for political or face-saving reasons – might be unable to actively engage.

• In many cases, agreements are not legally binding. However, the strong element of community ownership plays a vital role in ensuring their sustainability and compliance beyond the mediation process. It is essential to ensure that the agreement aligns with constitutional principles and is legally sound in order to make it more sustainable.

• Agreements provide a framework for parties to commit to key actions, shared values and mechanisms.

• Building on this framework, action and work plans help translate the objectives of mediation and dialogue processes into specific actionable steps. While agreements outline the commitments or mutual understanding reached (“what has been decided”), action or work plans break them down into concrete tasks, timelines, responsibilities and resource needs (focus on the “how”). For example, an agreement might state a commitment to equitable water-sharing, while the action plan specifies steps such as scheduling distribution, assigning monitoring roles, and setting up feedback mechanisms. Action and work plans thus ensure that agreements are implemented effectively.

• Incorporating adaptive strategies into agreements provides the flexibility needed to respond to future climate impacts, ensuring the sustainability of outcomes and enhancing resilience. This involves flexible planning, continuous monitoring and the ability to adjust actions as conditions evolve. For example, in a dialogue process focused on water management, communities may agree to adjust water-sharing schedules based on real-time rainfall data, allowing them to adapt to changing climate patterns. Adaptive strategies acknowledge the uncertainty of climate change and emphasise continuous learning and adjustment.

In Hawija, Kirkuk, participants successfully reached an agreement on water-sharing practices, which helped to mitigate conflicts over water resources and established a cooperative framework for managing water scarcity: “The water-sharing agreement was a significant outcome. It formalised commitments from different stakeholders and provided a clear framework for cooperation.” In the case of the Hawija agreement, the community committed to several key actions, including eliminating water violations, resolving water usage issues and other community problems by peaceful means, resorting to legal action only if peaceful solutions proved unattainable, activating a reporting mechanism, committing to proper waste disposal, coordinating water distribution and forming an oversight committee. In a next step, the agreement was formalised at a public signing ceremony attended by key stakeholders, including local authorities, community and tribal representatives, and members of the broader community. While not being legally binding, the significance of this agreement lies in its representative nature – bringing together all disputing parties to collectively outline and accept their respective responsibilities arising from the mediation process.

In Al-Zubair, Basra, the dialogue process resulted in a social pact in which parties committed to foster social cohesion and developed recommendations relating to climate change. Building on that, an action plan was developed to address specific concerns raised during the dialogue sessions. The plan included measures such as improving the security presence in identified locations and promoting cross-community social cohesion in some of the schools. According to the facilitator from Al-Zubair, “The action plan was crucial for implementing the agreed solutions. It provided a clear roadmap and helped to ensure that everyone was on the same page.”

In Tal Afar, the dialogue process included the development of an adaptive water management strategy that allowed for adjustments based on seasonal water availability and changing climate conditions. The facilitator from Tal Afar explained, “The adaptive water management strategy was designed to be flexible and responsive. It allowed the community to adjust their actions based on real-time conditions and new information.”

The aim is to capture all possible outcome-level results, beyond those outlined in the project logframe, and to continuously monitor our project's impact to inform ongoing improvement. By capturing both intended and unintended outcomes, outcome harvesting allows us to refine our approach over time and identify any negative consequences that may need to be addressed. The Outcome Statements can then be analysed against the process’s objectives and activities and their immediate, intermediate or long-term impacts (first-, second-, and third-order effects).

Example 1: A participant in the Zubair dialogue session identified climate change as a key driver of displacement and migration. This served as an entry point for a discussion about climate change as a factor in the conflict, which in turn facilitated a reduction in the mutual accusations between IDPs and host communities. [First order – mutual understanding]

Example 2: The mukhtars (local community leaders) in Kalar and representatives of government departments established contact with their respective peers and opened communication channels via WhatsApp to address water shortages cooperatively. [Second order – changes in practices; coordination]

Example 3: Local authorities in Hawija started a campaign in February 2023 to remove illegal access to a water channel and protect local water sources. This is a first step towards dialogue and building trust between local communities and local authorities on a water-sharing agreement. [Third order – on-the-ground result]

• How confident are you that your community can adapt to future climate-related challenges such as droughts or floods? (1: not confident at all; 10: extremely confident)

• To what extent do you agree with the statement: “Climate change impacts, such as droughts, floods and sandstorms, are a threat to our community”? (1: not at all; 10: to a very high extent)

• How confident are you in understanding the linkages between climate change, conflict, peace and security? (1: not confident at all; 10: extremely confident)

• How confident do you feel in your ability to facilitate dialogues on climate-related/environmental topics and conflicts? (1: not confident at all; 10: extremely confident)

• In Tal Afar, participants’ confidence in facilitating dialogues on climate-related conflicts improved from 7.1 to 8.4, i.e. an 18.3 per cent increase.

• In Kalar, participants demonstrated an improved understanding of the linkages between climate change, conflict, peace and security, with their average rating rising from 6.8 to 8.6, i.e. a 26.47 per cent increase. Additionally, their confidence in facilitating dialogues on climate-related and environmental topics and conflicts improved from 5.6 to 8.4 – a 50 per cent increase.

• In Hawija, the training resulted in an increase in participants' understanding of the climate-conflict nexus from an average rating of 6.5 to 7.8. This represents a 20 per cent increase in their understanding. Additionally, the training led to an increase in participants’ confidence in facilitating dialogue on climate-related and environmental topics from an average rating of 7.1 to 8.2, which represents a 15.49 per cent increase in their confidence.

The quantitative approach and the survey itself rely on self-assessment, which leaves room for bias or subjective interpretation. As a result, the survey findings sometimes did not show a significant increase, or even indicated a decline, in confidence and capacity levels. However, this does not necessarily mean that the training was unsuccessful. Including a few open-ended questions in the survey may be helpful in identifying trends, even if the quantitative data does not yield meaningful results. For example, when comparing pre- and post-survey results, the participants demonstrated a consistent understanding of the linkages between climate change, conflict, peace and security with an unchanged rating of 6.4 both before and after the training, while their preparedness for advocacy efforts remained unchanged at 9.0. When examining the responses to the questions about how dialogue and mediation on climate change and the environment can help transform conflicts and whether all people are equally affected by climate change, several trends emerge from the post-survey results. The responses are 1) more well-founded and precise, 2) provide more details or specific examples, and 3) include answers where none were provided previously. This suggests that, although the quantitative results — based on participants' self-assessment and perception — did not show a significant change, especially regarding the level of confidence to engage in advocacy and the understanding of the climate-security nexus, the qualitative responses indicate a deeper understanding and enhanced skill set.