On the 24 July, the fifteen members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) held a video conference to discuss the climate-security nexus and the related issues in maintaining international peace. During the conference, Miroslav Jenča – UN Assistant Secretary General for Europe, Central Asia and the Americas – called on other members to help speed up implementation of the landmark Paris Agreement on climate change. According to Jenča, climate change is the Council’s most existential challenge, and with the first article of the Charter of the United Nations binding signatory states to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to peace, it is the responsibility of member states to effect change.

POTENTIAL IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON THE ROLE OF THE UNSC

According to Jenča, the failure to consider the growing impacts of climate change will undermine the Council’s efforts at conflict prevention, peacemaking, and sustaining peace, whilst also risk trapping vulnerable countries in a vicious cycle of climate disaster and conflict. In Jenča's view: “it is no coincidence that seven of the ten countries most vulnerable and least prepared to deal with climate change host a peacekeeping operation or special political mission.”

In the Pacific, rising sea levels and extreme weather events pose a risk to social cohesion, whilst in Central Asia, water stress and reduced access to natural resources can contribute to regional tensions. Across sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and Latin America, climate-driven population displacement could undermine regional stability.  And in the Horn of Africa and the Middle East, the effects of climate change are already deepening grievances and escalating the risk of conflict – providing fodder for extremist groups.

Thus, according to Jenča, “the climate emergency is a danger to peace,” because the fragile or conflict-affected situations around the world are more exposed to – and less able to cope with – the effects of a changing climate.  

RESPONSIBILITY OF MEMBER STATES TO EFFECT CHANGE

Climate change and security is a controversial issue in the Council. Most Council members currently champion the organ’s engagement on this issue, emphasizing some actions that member states can take together, including:

• Enhancing understanding about the security implications of climate change;

• Developing the analytical capacities of the UN system to assess climate change-related security threats, providing the Security Council with useful information about these threats, and supporting states and regional organizations in developing and implementing actionable plans to address them – i.e. new technologies must be leveraged to strengthen the ability to turn long-term climate foresight into actionable, near-term analysis;

• Developing synergies among states, regional and sub-regional organizations, and the UN system in managing and mitigating climate change-related security risks; and

• Determining how the Security Council, the peace operations it mandates, and UN country teams can best collaborate to address such risks. 

“We must remain vigilant and summon the courage to adapt our established approaches to ensure they are fit for a climate-changed world. And above all, we must translate words into action,” Jenča concluded.

As Council members and other delegates delivered comments, many agreed that the UNSC should focus more on the risks and impacts of climate change in its agenda.  Several speakers called on the Council to adopt an integral approach that incorporates climate-security risks in its deliberations together with more contextualized reporting from the Secretary-General. Additionally, the essential nature of peace operations engaging with local communities and authorities in an inclusive manner was highlighted, as local knowledge and expertise are critical for effective policy analysis.

Peace operations should also “work with non-traditional security actors in co-producing risk assessments, efforts that should include national meteorological and hydrological agencies”. Subsequently, “each analysis must be accompanied by preventive measures to be implemented by Governments, regional organizations, development partners and United Nations agencies”. Also, many states advocated for “a mandate that would allow the effects of climate change on international peace and security to feature regularly on the Council’s agenda, as well as greater emphasis on climate in the context of the organ’s conflict prevention efforts”. 

As Germany’s Foreign Minister Heiko Maas said: “the fight against climate change should not divide us. We fight it to save ourselves. And we fight it for the people around the world who are already facing violence and displacement as a result of climate change. They cannot afford to wait. And therefore, ladies and gentlemen, the time for diplomatic patience is over. This Council cannot negotiate with the realities of nature. Action is all that counts.” 

Conversely, some states expressed concerns. South Africa’s representative stressed that little scientific evidence exists to suggest direct causality between climate change and threats to international peace and security. “Introducing climate change as a thematic issue on the Council’s agenda risks drawing attention and resources away from the Framework Convention on Climate Change”, he warned. In the view of Indonesia’s representative, the link between climate change and security risks is highly context-specific, stressing also the importance of “strengthening the capacity of affected countries to adapt and mitigate its impact”.  

Many situations on the Council’s agenda — from Haiti to Afghanistan to West Africa and the Sahel region or the Fiji Islands — demonstrate the concrete impact that the climate crisis is having on security. But, due to a lack of collective political will, the Council has proven unable to include climate and security considerations in many of its resolutions. Now, it is Russia, China, and the US that have strong reservations. Russia and China have expressed concern that Council involvement disturbs the prerogatives of other UN entities, which they maintain are better equipped to deal with this issue. Russia also believes that this is essentially a sustainable development matter, with only indirect links to international peace and security. The US has resisted efforts to incorporate climate-security language in Council outcomes on Iraq, Haiti and other matters. 

Will the UNSC be able to effect meaningful climate change despite opposition from key members?

Giulia is holds a Master's Degree in International Cooperation on Human Rights from the University of Bologna. She has a Bachelor's in Philosophy. Her fields of interest are immigration and refugee law, particularly related to unaccompanied foreign minors. She would love to work at the United Nations in the future.

LinkedIn