Climate, Gender, and Justice: Rethinking Security for a Fragile World

Helen Olafsdottir is a Security Sector and Development Specialist and has worked for the United Nations for over 18 years and is currently an independent expert working in the Horn of Africa and the MENA region advising several UN organizations. Between 2020 and 2025 Helen oversaw several joint UN security governance projects supporting the Somali government. Prior to that she worked as a policy specialist in areas of rule of law, security and human rights in UNDP New York supporting post-conflict  and conflict states primarily in the Middle East and the Horn of Africa. She served in Iraq as a crisis prevention and recovery advisor and in Afghanistan she was seconded to the Afghan government to support the drafting of the national development plan in 2008. Before joining the UN Helen served in Sri Lanka as a spokesperson and political advisor for the Sri Lanka Ceasefire Monitoring Mission.  

Previously Helen worked in the Political Division in the Council of Europe in Strasbourg and served for the Permanent Mission of Iceland to the Council of Europe. Helen commenced her career as a journalist and a reporter for Icelandic radio and TV.

Helen has an MSc from SOAS in Climate Change and Sustainable Development, an MSc from the London School of Economics in Politics of the World Economy and an MSc from Bristol University in International Relations.

This interview has been authorised for publication by Helen Olafsdottir.

We thank you, Helen Olafsdottir for accepting our interview with the Saint Pierre International Security Center.

SPCIS: How can crisis management be better integrated with sustainable development goals?

Helen Olafsdottir: Crisis management and sustainable development are often viewed separately: one as urgent, reactive, and short-term, and the other as strategic, planned, and long-term. In practice, especially in fragile contexts, they are deeply intertwined. A community’s ability to withstand and recover from crises is directly linked to their progress on sustainable development, especially relating to poverty reduction, education, gender equality and climate action.

We need to embed crisis risk reduction into development planning at all levels. This means treating resilience as a development objective. For example, food security initiatives should not only address current hunger but anticipate climate shocks that could destabilize supply chains. Similarly, infrastructure projects must incorporate risk assessments that look at natural disasters, conflict dynamics, and resource scarcity.

In fragile states like Somalia crisis management becomes almost synonymous with development itself. There, the SDGs cannot be achieved unless governance systems are equipped to anticipate, absorb, and adapt to shocks. Integrating crisis management into development planning is not just about protecting investments but about ensuring that progress can be sustained in highly volatile contexts.

SPCIS: What roles do public–private partnerships play in building stronger security and justice systems?

Helen Olafsdottir: Public–private partnerships (PPPs) can be transformative in environments where state institutions are weak or overstretched. Security and justice are public goods, but in fragile contexts the state cannot always afford to provide them alone. Engaging private actors, from technology companies to local service providers or the diaspora can fill gaps and even accelerate reforms where funding is scarce.

In justice systems, private partnerships can support digitalization of records, mobile court services, or legal aid hotlines that expand access to justice. In security provision in fragile states, we have not been very successful in bringing in meaningful private sector support for security development which is a missed opportunity because security is a precondition for the private sector to flourish.

If done inclusively PPPs can extend beyond service delivery. Such partnerships can also be instrumental in rebuilding trust between citizens and institutions. If managed properly, they demonstrate that security and justice are shared responsibilities across society. The key challenge is governance: without robust oversight frameworks, PPPs risk creating parallel systems or reinforcing inequality. But with transparency, oversight, and inclusion, they can mobilize resources and know-how where state institutions have limited capacity and presence.

SPCIS: In your view, how does the climate–security nexus shape today’s policy priorities?

Helen Olafsdottir: The climate–security nexus has moved from being a peripheral concern to a central agenda in international security. Climate change is no longer just an environmental challenge; it is a driver of instability, resource competition, and displacement. Policymakers increasingly recognize that climate shocks can undermine governance, fuel conflict, and create cascading security risks.

In fragile states, climate hazards often intersect with weak governance, exclusion, and armed groups. For example, in Somalia, droughts not only threaten livelihoods but also become leverage points for violent extremism where scarcity can be exploited to gain recruits or control access to resources. In such contexts, climate change is not a distant risk but an immediate security threat.

This reality is shaping priorities at multiple levels. National security strategies are beginning to incorporate climate projections; international donors are exploring how climate finance can be directed into fragile contexts; and peacebuilding actors are experimenting with “adaptation for peace” approaches that combine e.g., resource-sharing agreements with conflict resolution.

The pressing challenge is that funding for development is shrinking just as needs are growing. To truly integrate the climate–security nexus into policy, states and institutions must look beyond traditional aid and tap into blended finance, carbon markets, and private investment. The policy priority is therefore twofold: prevent climate shocks from becoming security crises, and design financial tools that make it possible to act in fragile environments.

SPCIS: How can gender perspectives strengthen approaches to justice and rule of law?

Helen Olafsdottir: Justice and rule of law are only legitimate when they are inclusive. Gender perspectives are vital because women and men experience insecurity and injustice in very different ways. In many fragile contexts, women face systemic exclusion from justice systems, whether through discriminatory laws, unequal access to representation, or the normalization of gender-based violence.

Incorporating gender perspectives means more than having women in leadership roles though that is important. It requires analysing how justice systems affect different groups and designing reforms accordingly. For example, community dispute resolution mechanisms might appear efficient but could entrench patriarchal norms if women’s voices are excluded. Similarly, police reform efforts that fail to address gender-based violence often leave half the population underserved.

Evidence also shows that women’s participation in justice and security institutions enhances legitimacy and effectiveness. Where women judges, prosecutors, and officers are present, survivors of violence are more likely to seek justice, and communities report greater trust. Integrating gender perspectives is therefore not just an equity issue but a practical necessity for building rule of law that is both responsive and resilient.

SPCIS: How can international cooperation support long-term resilience in fragile contexts?

Helen Olafsdottir: Resilience in fragile contexts cannot be achieved by single actors working alone. Fragility cannot be “fixed” in short project cycles. Long-term resilience demands multi-decade commitments that outlast political transitions. Cooperation must be adaptive. Crises in fragile states are unpredictable, so rigid programming tends to fail. International partners need to invest in institutions that can absorb shocks, mediate disputes, and provide continuity even when governments falter.

We need to see the Global North willing to invest in the Global South with more predictable financing.  Funds tend to be irregular, short term and unreliable. Donor funding is often supply-driven whereas resilience is built locally, so international actors must support national strategies rather than impose external templates. The most effective cooperation acknowledges three things: local ownership, long time horizons, and the need for flexibility.

Fragile states are on the frontlines of climate change and conflict but receive a fraction of global investment. International cooperation must include de-risking mechanisms, shared financing tools, and innovative approaches that encourage public and private sectors to invest in resilience where it is most needed. Ultimately the Global South deserves a stronger voice in our international systems and better access to markets and finance.