“There is still no consensus on whether the Security Council is the right arena for climate discussions,” writes SOFIE BERGLUND in the research paper ‘Reaching Climate Security: How Climate Change Moved up the Security Council Agenda’, published by the Swedish Institute of International Affairs.
“While some states argue that action on climate change is central to international security and conflict prevention, others fear it could legitimize interference in states’ sovereign decision making on development choices.”
As global emission curves continue stubbornly to point upwards despite multilateral agreements to limit temperature rise, a Security Council directive on immediate, holistic action is viewed by some as crucial to preventing the worst global climate change forecasts from coming true, the author states. Sweden (in 2017-2018) and Germany (in 2019-2020) are two of the most recent examples of non-permanent members urging the Security Council to adopt a more ambitious agenda on climate security matters.
Indeed, it seems that Sweden’s approach to incorporating climate change awareness into the Security Council mandate was particularly fruitful. Despite the reluctance of some permanent members, climate change made it into several resolutions, and a climate security mechanism and an expert network group were formed during its two-year membership of the Council.
What led the Security Council to agree to make climate change part of its resolution vocabulary? As Germany picks up from where Sweden left off, backed by several risk assessments that highlight climate change as one of the biggest threats to global security, will concerns and objections soon just be muffled things of the past?
BERGLUND offers an overview of the progress of the climate security debate in the Security Council and examines the defining moments leading up to where we are today. It then looks at the future of climate change as a Security Council issue, focused on the ambitious commitments of Germany, a current non-permanent member, and the positions of the permanent members. The paper concludes with remarks on the opportunities and pitfalls ahead.
“While states that favor climate security being discussed in the Security Council have faced significant obstacles, their work has been persistent and has accelerated in recent years,” the author states. The variety of hosts of open debates and Arria-formula meetings on the matter is worthy of note, highlighting broad support for increased action by the Council. The positions of the veto powers are, as in most Council matters, the biggest impediment to getting agreement on a resolution focused solely on climate change-related security risks.
The first resolution to include the phrase ‘climate change’ was adopted after the Council was brought face to face with the security impacts of climate change. It therefore seems to have been key to Sweden’s work to approach the matter geographically, locating first one location particularly at risk of further destabilization from climate change, and then another, instead of forcing a new topic area onto the Council agenda.
Security Council Resolution 1373, which required all states to take action to criminalize terrorism, followed in the emotional aftermath of 9/11. This suggests that a resolution on limiting climate change might follow an extreme weather event or humanitarian disaster. What such an event might be to trigger Council action is unclear, as immense disasters have already taken place without generating such a response. However, given that climate change now appears in resolutions and is being debated by more actors, a greater Security Council response to environmental disasters appears more likely in the future. The current state of global climate politics, however, most notably the failure to reach a satisfying agreement at COP25 makes a resolution on climate security within the near less probable. More likely is a Council statement arising from the joint initiatives of states, urging national governments to treat climate change as a security risk.
In sum, this has two primary implications. First, although the position of some of the veto powers says otherwise, there is momentum for climate action at this level. The growth in membership of the Group of Friends on Climate Security is one expression of this, as well as the continuing work to establish mechanisms to facilitate communication between science and policymaking. This encourages continuing work to keep the topic on the agenda.
This progress does, however, risk obscuring concerns about giving the Security Council a mandate to act on climate change and although the issue is pressing, states need to be mindful of these concerns when moving forward. Action on climate security could, as shown in this text, add legitimacy to a contested Security Council, but if not handled mindfully, it risks giving rise to even more criticism of the undemocratic processes of the Council.
Second, in connection with the urgent nature of climate change, the obstacles are still significant and states cannot rely solely on the Security Council to provide an immediate response at this time. Instead, the alliances of like-minded states built within and outside the Council should take the lead on climate action in other forums, without necessarily losing momentum in the Council.
Despite the severe obstacles, the author states, there are good reasons for policymakers and academics not to neglect the Security Council as a forum for raising climate-related security matters. The debates and opinions signal an international desire for a more holistic approach to climate change that includes areas not traditionally considered appropriate for discussion in that body. Advances have already been made and, as Germany and other states have signaled, climate security will be raised again in the Security Council in the near future, making it an important area for future research and analysis.
No comments:
Post a Comment