
Several climate security studies have assessed the risks of climate change to security and examined potential foreign policy responses, but the connection between climate change and foreign policy remains underexplored. The new Climate Diplomacy Report of the German Foreign Office takes up the challenge.
There are probably hundreds of climate security studies out there to assess the risks that climate change poses to security and potential foreign policy responses for addressing them. There are not too many government strategy papers out there, defining what linking climate change and foreign policy actually means. One of the most in-depth approaches to date was the European Commission’ work back in 2008 and 2011 to examine the relevance of climate change for security and to outline how climate diplomacy could be further strengthened.
However, in December 2019, the German Federal Foreign Office produced a “Climate Diplomacy Report” outlining different elements that can and should characterise climate-related foreign policy. In light of the international climate negotiations having stalling once more at COP26 in Madrid, it is worth reading the introductory text that highlights why diplomats should pay more attention to the climate crisis. It states that foreign policy needs: “[..] to support other countries and international organisations in dealing with the impact of climate change and in the transformation towards a climate-neutral economy, thus injecting impetus into the entire spectrum of our bilateral and multilateral relations.”
This framing of the issue not only highlights the goals of the Paris Agreement; it pushes supporting other countries’ transformations towards carbon neutrality to the forefront of activities to promote a preventive climate diplomacy. This is the first of six areas described in the report – the others being more conventional topics related to climate and security, such as stabilisation, post-conflict peacebuilding and humanitarian assistance, along with the need to deal with the geopolitical shifts that will emerge due to both climate change and climate policy.
Reading through the report, three main observations come to mind:
At the conclusion of the 50th Pacific Islands Forum, Pacific leaders issued a Forum Communiqué and the ‘Kainaki II Declaration for Urgent Climate Change Action Now’ – the strongest collective statement the Forum has issued on climate change. Pacific leaders highlight the UN Secretary-General’s Climate Action Summit, the SAMOA Pathway Review, and 25th session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 25) to the UNFCCC as “global turning points to ensure meaningful, measurable and effective climate change action”.
If ratified, the Mercosur-EU trade deal may reinforce the parties’ commitment to climate action. Yet, its potential relevance is weakened by a language that often stops short of concrete commitments, as well as political resistance.
Iraq is on the verge of an environmental breakdown, and climate change is not helping. The country's fragile environment and the increasing scarcity of natural resources — particularly water — are a result of poor environmental management, as well as several political and historical factors. However, as climate change impacts add to the existing pressures, the environmental collapse turns into a security issue.
To fight illegal coca plantations and conflict actors’ income sources, Colombia’s president wants to loosen the ban on aerial glyphosate spraying. However, considering the dynamics of organised crime, the use of toxic herbicides will not only fail to achieve its aim, it will have many adverse effects for the environment and human health, fundamentally undermining ways to reach peace in the country. International cooperation and national policy-makers need to account for this peace spoiler.