Climate Change and Security Policy

THE SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT IS OVER

Driven by climate change, the world is waking up to a new kind of conflict. Clashes over pastoral grazing rights in the Sahel; piracy off the coast of Somalia; melting glaciers in the Himalayas; Russian explorers planting their national flag on the seabed of the North Pole.

These are the potential flashpoints of the 21st century, with old sources of conflict being fanned by the new pressures from climate change. How we handle these tensions will be crucial in deciding whether we can preserve a peaceful international order through this century.

In recent years, we have become more aware of these issues. In April 2007, the UN Security Council held a first debate on the link between climate change and international conflict. In the US, there has been a marked increase in efforts by the research and security communities to assess and think through the climate-security nexus. Europe, too, has been increasingly active. In March 2008, along with the European Commission, I presented a report to the European Council on Climate Change and International Security.

My report drew three main conclusions. The first is that the risks posed by climate change are real and its impacts are already taking place. This is not a problem for the distant future. The scientific argument about climate change is over. The findings of the IPCC are clear: global temperatures, sea levels and the frequency of extreme weather events are all rising.

CO2 emissions and other greenhouse gases are behind these changes. Feedback loops are rapidly worsening the impact of climate change on our eco-systems.

As US President Obama has rightly said: our planet is in peril. Already last year, the vast majority of emergency appeals for humanitarian aid were climate-related. But the risks posed by climate change go far beyond humanitarian crises. That is why climate change is not “just” an environmental challenge, no matter how urgent and important. Climate change also causes serious political and security risks. We need to act on these threats now, in a co-operative manner.

CLIMATE CHANGE AGGRAVATES CONFLICTS

Secondly, the report underlined that the most appropriate way of viewing climate change is as a threat multiplier: it aggravates the stresses and strains within and between countries. It increases the pressure on other drivers of conflict and instability, through reduced agricultural productivity, water shortage and desertification, displacement and migration (within and between countries), natural disasters and changes to coastlines. Access to resources, especially where such access is politicised, is especially important and has a clear potential to create unrest and violent conflicts.

It is important to underline that greater tensions are probable but conflict is far from inevitable. What matters is how people respond. What we are seeing is that climate change is threatening to overburden those countries and regions that are already fragile and conflict-prone. So, the critical variable is governance. How governments will respond to the impacts of climate change depends on how well they resolve conflicts today. That is why raising awareness and acting now to enhance resilience is so important.

Take Somalia, as a good example. A cycle of droughts and floods has reduced food production and bred instability in a society already weakened by interethnic tensions, extremism and outside intervention. For many years, Somalia has lacked anything resembling an effective and legitimate government. The consequences have included greater emigration and pirate attacks on international shipping. We face a challenge that combines environmental, humanitarian and security elements. In 2008, the EU decided to deploy a naval mission – our first under the European Security and Defence Policy – to the region as part of our response. But we know we cannot address the security problems off-shore without working for a lasting solution to Somalia’s political problems on-shore.

It would be simplistic to see climate change as the principal cause behind this conflict. But nor is it absent. When placed alongside traditional causes of conflict, climate change aggravates the situation. The same dynamic applies to the conflict in Sudan/Darfur, where reduced rainfall has heightened tensions over access to arable land.

THERE ARE NO "HARD POWER" ANSWERS

Thirdly, the report stressed that we need a comprehensive and global approach. We know that while climate change has real consequences for our security, there are no real “hard power” answers. It is about aligning all levers of external policy: development policy, trade, diplomacy and crisis management.

Climate change itself can only be addressed through global action and a robust international regime. This, too, applies to the security aspects. We need to forge broad coalitions of all key actors in this field, from major countries such as the US, China and Russia to the UN and its specialised agencies and regional organisations such as the OSCE, the African Union and ASEAN.

In a broader sense, the multilateral system is at risk if the international community fails to address these threats. Those most affected by climate change are not those most responsible for causing it. This could fuel a politics of resentment: North-South but also South-South, pitting major emitters against those most affected. In short, the geopolitics of climate change will extend far beyond the environment and will link old problems in new ways.

DEVELOPING A "CARBON DIPLOMACY"

What are we doing to address the impact of climate change on international security? First we are building up EU capacities across the board: from monitoring and early warning, to conflict prevention, crisis management and disaster response. The more we know and the more capabilities we have, the better able we will be to prevent the worst and assist those who will be hit hardest to cope with the inevitable.

Second, we are developing “carbon diplomacy”. In all our relationships – from Africa to the Middle East; from Latin America to Central Asia and beyond – we are raising awareness about the security effects of climate change and discussing how we can best build capacity in those countries that need it most. We are also engaging a broad range of actors such as NGOs, think-tanks and, businesses, alongside the traditional foreign policy community.

Third, we are assessing whether existing rules of the game are “climate-proof”. With rising waters and melting sea ice, there is an increasing need to address the growing debate over territorial claims, exclusive economic zones, and access to new trade routes. Apart from pushing for full implementation of existing rules of international law such as the Law of the Sea, there might be a need to strengthen them in the light of new challenges created by climate change. Some countries that are extremely vulnerable to climate change are also calling for international recognition of environmentally-induced migration.

SPOTTING INSTABILITY AHEAD OF TIME

We have found that a lot of this is about bringing together people from the security and environmental communities. This task is exciting in intellectual terms but not so easy in practical terms. Too often people refer to, make and implement policies in separate “silos”. Raising the linkage between climate change and security has encouraged us to take a new look at how we forge our foreign and security policy. This is not about “securitising” the debate, or taking it out of the hands of environmental ministers. But the military and security establishment has insights and a way of thinking that can bring real value: on mobilising large technological research projects, for instance; or planning against what might be low-risk but would be high-impact events.

At the same time, environmentalists have an important contribution to make to the foreign policy establishment, in helping us think about a wider range of causes behind conflict, and how we can use new kinds of data, including climatic data, to improve our capacity to spot potential instability ahead of time.

It is clear that we are only at the beginning of a process. We need a lot more research that looks at the consequences of climate change in greater detail for specific regions, be it West Africa, the Sahel, the Middle East or Central Asia, or for individual countries. Climate change is a global problem but will have very differentiated impacts. We need detailed analyses to sharpen our conflict prevention strategies and crisis management planning.

To give just one example, think of Bangladesh. The population of that country, which already stands at 142 million, is predicted to rise by a further 100 million in coming decades. India has constructed a fence system along the border, to contain emigration. But if sea levels rise, coupled with more monsoons, the pressures will increase. Add to that the consequences of poverty and radical Islam, and you have a foreign policy challenge that defies simple categorisation.

EUROPEANS MUST DO MORE

In conclusion, the link between climate change and foreign policy means that we have to work in parallel on two tracks.

The first means ensuring that we will have an ambitious and robust post-Kyoto agreement. This will require deft diplomacy that brings together all the relevant players on the basis of common but differentiated responsibilities. Copenhagen in December 2009 is the moment.

To catalyse a deal, the EU has committed itself to reduce emissions by 20% compared to 1990 levels and has offered to cut by 30% if other developed countries commit to comparable cuts as part of an international deal. We count on the US, Russia, China, India and all others to live up their global responsibilities. The second track means working with others to address the security consequences of climate change.

Whatever agreement will be reached in Copenhagen, and even if we switched off all the lights today, the environmental consequences of past emissions will still be felt tomorrow. This equally applies to the security consequences.

All the evidence suggests that we can expect a world of more weak and failing states; more migration; more disputes over resources; and more frequent natural disasters. Europeans must be ready to do more to handle these challenges, using the wide range of diplomatic, security, development and trade policies that the European Union can deploy, in partnership with others.

We are all products of our environment. A changing planet is creating serious challenges for people around the world.

This book – “100 places to remember before they disappear” – reminds us what is at stake. We need to take action now.