Ecological security: an important moment

The UN General Assembly high-level week is an uber talkfest, so it’s important to use the opportunity to say something important. While most of the media attention has been on some more rambling boasting from the US President, UK Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband did indeed use the opportunity and used it well.

An intelligence assessment for the UK government on the security impact of ecological disruption was completed not far short of a year ago. It is a report of the Joint Intelligence Committee so it is not a surprise that the government sat on it for several months. What was a surprise is that when it was finally published in January this year, instead of there being a fanfare, it was eased into public view as a report from the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. It was a kind of backhanded way of publishing it, suggesting a grudging acceptance of the need to publish it but no intention to go much further.

The Guardian says that the version that was published was redacted. If so, I shudder to think what may be in the full version. Here is the first sentence of the summary:

“Global ecosystem degradation and collapse threaten UK national security and prosperity.”

So far as I can see on reading it, no punches are pulled. And by the way, the otherwise excellent reportage in The Guardian is wrongly headlined to say the report is about the impact of climate change. The report rightly goes wider than that, as its title as well as its first sentence make clear.

So what did Ed Miliband do? –– He spoke. He shared the substance of the report at a meeting on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, speaking to foreign ministers of the EU, Kenya and others. And he finished off with a good, sharp message:

“The countries fit for the future will be those that see climate and nature as intrinsic to economic and national security. 

“Countries that anticipate risks and invest in resilience before crises hit. 

“Countries that seize the incredible opportunities the clean energy transition presents. 

“Countries that don’t just see the connections but act on them. 

“That is why the UK is placing climate and nature security at the heart of our national security and foreign policy decision-making.”

This is a realignment of security policy that is badly needed. It’s obviously not enough to say it, you have to do it. It’s not enough for one country to do it, there have to be more. But this is a welcome sign of the UK under a new government getting back to forefront of this discussion, where it was ten years ago, and moving the discussion (and hopefully the policy) forward.

The Great Acceleration

You know, it is easy to understand how it gets to be a drag, having to think about things in new and different ways.

If you have been working on international development over the past 30 years since the end of the Cold War, in a government, or inter-governmental agencies, or non-governmental organisations, or switching among them, you will know what I mean. First there was development, then you had to add gender and human rights, then environment, and then conflict and peace. Wouldn’t it be great to get back to working just on development? And those folk over there could work on environment or gender or peace and conflict if they want and, you know, just get on with stuff.

Likewise, there are complaints and doubts within the humanitarian community about how their work is complicated by the people who want them to think about development and peace as well as simply meeting immediate human needs.

But watch out. As they say, people who are wise: be careful what you wish for.

In various governments among the traditional donors of international development assistance, things are beginning to unfold that could lead to a distinct narrowing of focus, leaving much of development and peace out of the picture and concentrating on meeting humanitarian emergencies.

This blog post is about one reason – an environmental reason – why that is deeply problematic, why it is essential to grasp the nettle and think about the full range of problems that confront peace and development today. Just one reason among several. The argument swings on the big changes in human impact on the environment that have unfolded since about 1950.

Continue reading →

Between two COPs

It is well established that, worldwide, there is an unfolding, escalating, multi-factor environmental crisis. It is seen in the loss of biodiversity and of biomass, massive changes in the use of land, air pollution, chemical pollution, plastics pollution and climate change. It has effects on health, food security, livelihoods, social and political stability, conflicts and the ability to handle them.

There is no real empirical argument left about any of this. It is getting something done to arrest the slide that is hard.

Two main international agreements attempt to address the environmental crisis: the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. There was a Conference of Parties (COP) – a kind of health check – for the climate convention at the start of November, and there will be one on the Biodiversity Convention in December.

So right now we are between two COPs.

Continue reading →