access to social protection or necessary institutional supports. As a result, their resilience is undermined and their ability to adapt reduced. Deputy Secretary-General, Amina Mohammed, told the Security Council last year: “Fragile countries are in danger of becoming stuck in a cycle of conflict and climate disaster.” The most frequently cited example of this phenomenon is the situation in the Lake Chad basin region, where an environmental catastrophe—the shrinking of Lake Chad by 90%—has had profound economic and social implications. The shrinking of the lake was accompanied by a shrinking of economic opportunities, an increase in vulnerability, and the rise of instability and violent extremism—most notably, the Boko Haram insurgency. Local leaders, such as Hindou Ibrahim, are in no doubt about the link between these two events.
Disasters are not the only climate change-related developments that affect security. I believe that we must also broaden our perspectives when we consider what we mean by insecurity and the potential for a humanitarian crisis. So-called ‘conflict’ can manifest at all levels; intra-national conflict, or conflict between major ethnic groups, is worthy of consideration, especially as it leads to displacement, which further exacerbates climate vulnerability and plays havoc with ecosystems. Moreover, lower-level conflict can often have a negative impact, especially placing different kinds of strain on humanitarian systems, including in zones or regions of the world not traditionally associated with conflict.
This reality was acknowledged by the leaders of the Pacific Islands Forum, where they declared, “Climate change remains the single greatest threat to the livelihoods, security and well-being of the peoples of the Pacific.” The Pacific Small Island Developing States have pushed hard for the appointment of a Special Envoy on Climate and Security. Their aim is to put in place mechanisms that will allow them to forecast what future security threats might play out as a result of climate impacts in their traditionally peaceful region. This is an initiative I fully support, as it aims to prepare for the future realities we know we will face. The response to date, in terms of how we, as an international community, prepare for the growing humanitarian needs that stem from climate change, has been, I’m afraid, sorely lacking.
The Security Council had its first discussion on climate and security in seven years under the Swedish Presidency of the Security Council last July. This was followed last January with an open debate under the Dominican Republic’s Council Presidency. I am acutely aware of the arguments against the Security Council dealing with this issue—encroachment on the mandates of other UN entities, the risk of securitisation of climate change, as well as a denial of climate change itself by some. However, we, The Elders, believe it is time that the Security Council caught up with the reality on the ground—the reality for the communities that Hindou Ibrahim gave voice to when she spoke to the Council.
Understanding climate risk should be an essential element of the Security Council’s prevention agenda. By deepening its understanding of how climate change is interacting with other drivers in the individual country contexts on its agenda—or with the potential to reach its agenda—the Council can meet its responsibility under the UN Charter. Doing so does not mean that the Council is encroaching on the mandates of other UN entities, only that it considers all factors at play in a given context.
It is encouraging that the Council has begun to move in this direction, with its recognition of the need for adequate risk assessment and management strategies relating to the adverse security effects of climate and ecological factors in a number of geographical contexts, including the Lake Chad Basin, the Sahel, and the Horn of Africa. However, in order for members of the Council to carry out their work, there is a need for a better understanding of climate related security risks across all of the Council’s files. This requires better reporting from the field that includes climate risk assessments as standard. Reporting needs to be integrated with an analysis of how the different drivers of conflict are interacting with one another. The inter-agency initiative established by the Secretary-General is a welcome move in this regard.
Outside of the Security Council, the humanitarian community has recognised the challenges it faces in responding to the growing humanitarian needs as a result of climate change and conflict. The World Humanitarian Summit Chair’s summary recognised that humanitarian assistance alone will never adequately address nor sustainably reduce the needs of the world’s most vulnerable people; rather, a new coherent approach is required, based on addressing root causes, increasing political diplomacy for prevention and conflict resolution, and bringing humanitarian, development and peacebuilding efforts together.
In my view, there are three elements that are needed to form the basis of this new approach. Firstly, and this won’t surprise you, climate justice. This is a concept that I have championed for some time. It links human rights and development to achieve a human-centred—a people centred—approach, safeguarding the rights of the most vulnerable people and sharing the burdens and benefits of climate change and its impacts equitably and fairly. Climate justice is informed by science, responds to science and acknowledges the need for equitable stewardship of the world’s resources.
Climate justice is a transformative concept. It insists on a shift from a discourse on greenhouse gases and melting ice caps into a civil rights movement with people and communities most vulnerable to climate impacts at its heart. Humanitarian action must put this concept at the centre of its efforts, particularly when engaging climate related impacts.
Part of this climate justice approach is a recognition of how men and women are affected by climate change in different ways. For example, in many communities women are the primary food producers and providers of water and cooking fuel for their families, so any changes in climate or disasters that affect these roles, not only impact women’s ability to provide, but also on the community as a whole. It is for this reason that women must be at the forefront of the response. Women are best placed to identify the needs and vulnerabilities of their communities and should therefore be consulted and involved in decision-making in climate adaptation, humanitarian preparedness, and response.
Climate justice does not just cut across countries and societies. It cuts across generations—how we safeguard future generations. What kind of world do we want to leave to our children and to our grand-children? Can we proudly stand here today and say that their lives will be more prosperous, more equal and fairer than our own? In fact, tomorrow’s leaders may well be frustrated and angry by our inaction today. We need to anticipate and integrate the needs and concerns of future generations to better inform the decisions that we make today.
Secondly, we can no longer afford to regard the 2030 Agenda and the Paris Climate Agreement as voluntary, and a matter for each member state to decide on its own. It is clear from the IPCC report that the full implementation of both the 2030 Agenda and the Paris Climate Agreement has become imperative in order to save future generations from an increasing level of humanitarian disaster and need. Delivering on the goals we have set ourselves in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Paris Climate Agreement, as well as the Sustaining Peace Agenda, will not eliminate the challenges ahead, but it will significantly improve our ability to address them. At the same time, without reaching the furthest behind, we will never realise the 2030 Agenda.
The more just, equal, sustainable, and prosperous societies envisaged in the 2030 Agenda would be better able to respond to the challenges of climate change. However, delivering on the promise of the SDGs will mean accepting profound changes to the way we live our lives. Are we ready for such a transformation? Making it happen will require a change of mind-set at the global political level.
Limiting the increase in global average temperature to 1.5°C would substantially reduce the risks and effects of climate change, particularly on those communities least able to respond. However, we must ensure that the most vulnerable communities, who face the worst impacts, have access to international support and financing for adaptation to impacts that will happen irrespective of limiting global temperature increases. Likewise, those working in fossil fuel industries cannot be left out. We need more funding for just transition, for adaptation solutions and for technology. The financing
