During April 10 and11 2016, the G7 Foreign Ministers met at Hiroshima, Japan to discuss current international affairs in the run-up to the G7 Summit in May. In the final Joint Communiqué they once again took a strong stance on tackling climate-fragility risks collectively. They endorsed a quick entry into force of the Paris Agreement by all parties, while also emphasizing the role of the G7 in the prevention of climate fragility risks and the need to further consider these challenges as part of their foreign policies:
“We reiterate that climate change poses a serious threat to global security and economic prosperity and shared the view that foreign policy must contribute to addressing this challenge effectively. In this context, we welcome the report submitted to us by the G7 Working Group on Climate Change and Fragility, endorse its recommendations, and affirm the need to continue to work on the issues of the climate-fragility risks by aligning our efforts toward the common goal of increasing resilience and reducing fragility in the face of global climate change, including taking steps to integrate climate-fragility considerations across our national governments.”
This statement has been preceded by the Meeting of G7 Foreign Ministers in Lübeck a year ago, where the Ministers first announced their commitment on tackling climate-fragility risks after receiving and discussing the report A New Climate for Peace: Taking Action on Climate and Fragility Risks, which was conducted by an independent international consortium led by adelphi. As a consequence, the foreign ministers decided to set up a working group with the task to evaluate the report and work out recommendations regarding possible implementation in time for their 2016 meeting.
With their latest declaration, the foreign ministers substantiated their commitment to attend to the matter of climate and fragility risks as posed in the report.
The scope of national security is expanding beyond violent threats to encompass a broader array of dangers. In an article for World Politics Review, CFR's Stewart M. Patrick assesses the implications of COVID-19 and climate change for the theory and practice of national security.
Although there is no causality nor direct and automatic link between climate change and conflict, we can see that climate change can intensify conflict drivers and make it harder to find stability. The online workshop "Climate change, conflict and fragility: Increasing resilience against climate-fragility risks", organised by the European Peacebuilding Liaison Office (EPLO) and adelphi, looked into this complex relationship.
Since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous parallels have been drawn between this health crisis and the climate crisis. Science plays an important role in advising decision makers on how to ensure sustainable crisis management and a precautionary approach to avoid harmful repercussions, particularly where we do not yet know all the consequences of our actions. [...]
Decarbonisation won’t come as fast as the pandemic. But if fossil fuel exporters are not prepared for it, they will face an enduring crisis. The EU can help.