NACIONES UNIDAS
Reino Unido 'mete' el cambio
climático en el Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU porque puede causar conflictos y guerras
China y naciones en desarrollo se oponen fuertemente a que el
organismo, controlado por las naciones ricas con derecho a veto, asuma futuras
disputas por recursos naturales
RESUMEN DE TODAS LAS INTERVENCIONES (en inglés)
Naciones Unidas. 17/04/2007. Noticias24horas.com. Momento
histórico; una estrategia se está 'cociendo'. A convocatoria de Reino Unido, el Consejo
de Seguridad de la ONU celebró hoy la primera reunión sobre cambio climático en su
historia, pero China y otras naciones señalaron que el tema no compete a este órgano.
"Los países en desarrollo estiman que el Consejo no tiene la competencia
profesional para manejar el cambio climático, ni es tampoco el lugar apropiado",
para discutir algo que lleve a propuestas aceptables, dijo el embajador alterno de China,
Liu Zhenmin.
Los representantes de Qatar, Rusia, Indonesia y Sudáfrica manifestaron durante el debate,
respaldaron la posición china, al indicar que el Consejo no es el lugar para abordar el
tema y tomar decisiones. Los dos representantes de América Latina y el Caribe en el
Consejo, Panamá y Perú, se alinearon con la posición del anfitirión, al igual que el
secretario general del organismo, Ban Ki-Moon.
"Los asuntos de energía y cambio climático, tienen incidencia en la paz y
seguridad", del mundo, dijo Ban en su discurso al Consejo. La titular de Relaciones
Exteriores de Reino Unido, Margaret Beckett indicó por su parte que el
potencial de que los efectos del cambio climático generen conflictos y guerras es real y
por tanto tiene lugar en la agenda del Consejo de Seguridad. El gobierno británico
aprovechó que tiene la presidencia del Consejo éste mes e inscribió el tema, en medio
de la creciente notoriedad que el cambio climático y sus secuelas han ganado alrededor
del mundo en meses recientes.
Margaret Beckett: el
cambio climático puede generar conflictos
y guerras, y por tanto tiene lugar en la agenda del Consejo de Seguridad
"Nuestra responsabilidad en éste Consejo es
mantener la paz y seguridad internacionales, incluyendo la prevención de conflicto",
dijo Beckett al presentar su explicación de motivos y citando la carta que rige a las
Naciones Unidas. "Un clima inestable podría exacerbar algunos de los motores
de conflicto", alrededor del mundo, como presiones migratorias y la competencia por
recursos naturales y otros, acotó.
Los opuestos al debate al interior del Consejo, señalan que toca a la Asamblea General,
el cuerpo de la ONU donde todos los estados miembros tienen la misma voz y voto, discutir
el tema y sus implicaciones. El temor subyacente de muchos, según diplomáticos, es
que en el mediano plazo, la disputa por recursos naturales, petróleo y otros, se
convierta en blanco de las necesidades o intereses políticos de los países más
poderosos, de manera institucional. Estados Unidos, que tuvo un bajo perfil en la
reunión. El Consejo debatió el tema sin que hubiera de por medio una resolución ó
declaración final.
RESUMEN DE TODAS LAS
INTERVENCIONES
NOTE: FOLLOWING ARE SUMMARIES OF STATEMENTS MADE AT TODAY’S SECURITY COUNCIL
MEETING ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ENERGY, SECURITY AND CLIMATE. A COMPLETE SUMMARY WILL
BE MADE AVAILABLE AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF THE MEETING AS PRESS RELEASE SC/9000.
Background
The Security Council met this morning to hold its first-ever open debate exploring the
relationship between energy, security and climate. As outlined in a letter from the
Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom to the President of the Council (document
S/2007/186), the discussion was expected to focus on the security implications of climate
changes, including their impact on potential drivers of conflict, such as access to
energy, water, food and other scarce resources; population movements; and border disputes.
Statements
The President of the Security Council, MARGARET BECKETT, Foreign
Secretary of the United Kingdom, opened today’s debate, saying that, while
there was some doubt about whether the Council was the right forum, the Council’s
responsibility was the maintenance of international peace and security, and climate change
exacerbated many threats, including conflict and access to energy and food. There was also
potential economic disruption, which would inevitably have an impact on the world. The
international community needed to recognize that there was a security impact from climate
change, and begin to build a shared understanding of the relationship between
energy, security and climate. By holding today’s debate, the Council was not seeking
to pre-empt the authority of other bodies, including the General Assembly, the Economic
and Social Council and various subsidiary bodies and agencies. The decisions that they
came to, and action taken, in all those bodies required the fullest possible understanding
of the issues involved. So, she very much looked forward to today’s debate.
JÁN KUBIŠ, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Slovakia,
said that the complexity of the climate system made it difficult to predict, but there was
now an effective consensus among the world’s leading scientists that there was a
discernible human influence on the climate and a link between the concentration of carbon
dioxide and the increase in temperature. Now was time to consider the policy dimensions of
climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had already finalized a new
report that assessed the current and future impact of global warming and explored
opportunities for proactively adapting to them. The report concluded that many elements of
the natural and physical environment were already responding to the effects of
humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions.
Continuing, he said it was important to underline the scale of the implications for the
developing world. It was fairly easy to appreciate the security, stability and health
problems that would arise in a world in which there was increasing pressure on water
availability, where there was a major loss of arable land, food shortages and large-scale
displacements of population due to flooding and other climate change effects. The poorest
countries would suffer most. Over the coming decades, the Arctic, sub-Saharan Africa,
small island States, low-lying ecosystems and water resources, and agricultural production
in certain regions would be at particular risk.
Such threats and growing social stress could only be properly addressed through
international agreements and their consistent implementation, he continued. Only concerted
action by Governments could successfully address the long-term challenges of fighting
climate change and stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, while
avoiding severe global economic and political strains and sustaining economic growth. The
1987 Montreal Protocol had shown how quickly a global environmental problem could be
reversed, once targets were agreed upon. Slovakia was strongly engaged to work with the
world’s industrial countries and emerging economies to reach emission-reduction
targets after the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol ended in 2012. Emissions trading was
one of the most cost-effective ways of reducing carbon emissions, and the emission-trading
scheme in Europe was of great importance to overall targets in that respect. A worldwide
network of such schemes could accelerate positive effects. It was also necessary to
continue to support investments of new low-carbon technologies, and there were ways to
consider nuclear energy as a cleaner choice. Those were some of the reasons Slovakia would
follow the respective decisions of the March European Council on energy that had
established binding European Union commitments on carbon dioxide emissions.
Security was only one of the factors to be considered under the climate change overall
agenda, he added, but, in this case, it was well in line with Security Council resolution
1625 (2005) to comprehensively address the root causes of armed conflict and political and
social crises. Notwithstanding what the other forums, including the General Assembly,
already dealt with, the Council was well positioned to incorporate that new dimension of
perception of threats into its considerations, while still remaining within its mandate.
VITTORIO CRAXI, Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of
Italy, said the present debate would help provide “food for thought on the
right actions to take in the competent fora”. Climate change had the potential of
affecting not only the environment, but also stability and security, especially when they
coincided with problems of an ethnic, cultural, political or economic character. For
example, territorial changes caused by a rise in sea levels might impinge on disputes over
borders or the division of maritime zones. Environmental degradation related to climate
change might drive entire populations away from areas such as sub-Saharan Africa, the
Middle East, South-East Asia and small islands -- indeed, it had been estimated that, by
2010, such “population shifts” might number 50 million people. Those conflicts
and mass exoduses would then contribute to an increase in poverty, which, in turn, would
increase pockets of discontent and recruitment by rebels or terrorists.
He noted the relationship between climate change and energy consumption, which, he said,
was reflected in crisis situations between States. Indeed, the modern lifestyle required
huge amounts of energy, translating into a search for large quantities of fossil fuels,
which could produce geopolitical tensions and “environmental unsustainability”.
Common strategies were needed to address risks related to climate change and the
world’s current model of economic growth. In the context of the United Nations,
Member States should strive to implement a system of multilateral environmental
governance, as referred to by the Secretary-General in his report on the recommendations
of the Panel on System-Wide Coherence. Indeed, Italy believed firmly in creating a United
Nations environmental organization.
He said the European Union had recently committed to reduce greenhouse emissions by 20 per
cent by 2020 and by 30 per cent in the event that a post-Kyoto international agreement was
reached. Targets were being set to increase energy efficiency, renewable energy and use of
biofuel. Italy played an active role on environmental questions within the “Group of
Eight” framework, and planned to hold a national conference on climate in September.
JOHAN VERBEKE ( Belgium) said the recent report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change reaffirmed the scope of the phenomenon and the urgency with which
it needed to be addressed. The international community must address the issue in an
integrated manner, which dealt with the need to promote growth, while, at the same time,
protecting the environment and reducing fossil fuel consumption. It was clear that climate
change and global warming raised the risks of non-military threats, including, among
others, sea-level rise, degradation of biodiversity, displacement of populations and crop
depletion. They also increased the risk that fragile States would relapse into conflict or
civil war. He added that it was also apparent that climate change most adversely affected
those countries and peoples that were already struggling to achieve sustainable
development.
It was necessary to broaden the scope of common thinking about security threats, he said.
That would lead to the development of clear, agreed and effective policy frameworks to
address climate change and energy use. There were several steps that the United Nations
could take. Along with guiding reinvigorated global policy discussions and negotiations,
the Secretary-General must be encouraged to use his office to generate political will to
recognize not only the issue of climate change, but the security dimensions of the
phenomenon.
The Organization could also back efforts to ensure the capacity to prevent and manage
climate risks could be strengthened and at national levels, he continued. States had
everything to gain from close dialogue with civil society, which was today a crucial
driving force for raising awareness about climate change. The picture drawn by experts was
alarming, even dire. Nevertheless, there was a window of opportunity to act, but not much
time. Only a new spirit of political courage and dedication would “allow us to live
up to our responsibility of collective security”.
L.K. CHRISTIAN ( Ghana) commended the United Kingdom for holding the
current debate, and said it was his country’s fervent hope that the “repeated
alarm” about the threats posed by climate change, especially to regions that were
already struggling with chronic instability, would “lead to action that is timely,
concerted and sustainable”. For its part, the African Union was collaborating on
climate issues with the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (ECA), the World
Meteorological Organization, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission and the International Council for Science. At a
session of the assembly of Heads of State and Government of the African Union in January,
the supportive efforts of development partners were acknowledged in an action plan
entitled “Climate Information for Development Needs: An Action Plan for Africa”.
He said the issue of climate change in Africa should be framed in terms of how to combat
the phenomenon without compromising the targeted 8 per cent growth rate needed to reduce
poverty. To do so, it was important to consider the following: What sorts of compromises
would developing countries be obliged to make, in line with the emergent international
consensus on energy, security and climate change? Would they be politically sustainable
within already fragile States? In light of the “unfinished business of the Kyoto
Protocol”, in what direction should the partnership between developed and developing
countries move towards?
He said that, with global energy consumption estimated to grow by 70 per cent by 2030, the
acquisition and protection of energy supplies was of strategic importance to nations. The
Gulf of Guinea Commission, comprised of oil-rich countries in West and Central Africa, had
been working to ensure that potential maritime border disputes were peacefully resolved,
in line with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. That peaceful approach
was exemplified in the dispute between Nigeria and Cameroon, which had been brokered by
the United Nations. Yet, sharp increases in temperature, which might have a hand in
worsening drought and flooding, led to food shortages, the spread of disease and the
displacement of people. The expanding Sahara desert had brought with it some cross-border
problems -- for example, there were credible reports of nomadic Fulani cattle herdsmen
arming themselves with sophisticated assault rifles to confront local farming communities,
who had become impatient with the roaming cattle. It was important that, from time to
time, the Council evaluate the dangers of such confrontations. The deadly competition over
resources in Africa could not be glossed over; be they over water, shrinking grazing land
or the inequitable distribution of oil.
BASILE IKOUEBE ( Congo) said that climate change represented one of the
major challenges today. He shared the concerns of the “Group of 77” developing
countries with regard to the functions of various bodies of the United Nations when it
came to issues of sustainable development. There was a need, however, for an urgent
response, and the Security Council was well placed to help the international community
become aware of the threat posed by climate change. Congo also supported the
Secretary-General’s call for urgent action.
He said that the report published in Brussels on 6 April was unequivocal regarding the
threats and clearly indicated that the areas most affected would include the Arctic,
sub-Saharan Africa, small island developing States, low-lying and coastal areas. It also
stated that the poorest would suffer the most. The irony would be that the poor would be
paying for the excess consumption and carefree attitude of the rich. Africa was concerned
about climate change, and a recent summit in Addis Ababa had addressed that issue. Congo
was already facing the challenges of climate change. For the first time in history, men
and women would fight for food, energy and water, but, this time, at a larger scale and
with disastrous effects that would dwarf the conflicts of the past.
It was useful that the main body of the United Nations in charge of security sought to
galvanize universal awareness of the issues involved, he continued. He expected the
Council to sound an alarm bell, but details and strategies needed to be elaborated
elsewhere. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto
Protocol set the framework for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. For their part, seeking
to protect the second greatest forest mass after the Amazon forest, several African
countries had adopted a partnership to promote sustainable management of the Congo Basin.
That was a huge initiative, which brought together several bilateral and multilateral
partners and sought maximum participation. He hoped there would be greater commitment from
the international community regarding climate change, and that would be expressed at the
conference to be held in Bali in December. The International Panel on Climate Change had
pointed out that conflicts might develop for water resources and that climate change could
lead to an increase in migration, if adequate adaptation measures were not adopted and
included in long-term strategies. The Council should shape the necessary awareness for
urgent action.
NASSIR ABDULAZIZ AL-NASSER ( Qatar) said that climate
change had become an urgent and pressing reality that left the global community with one
option: international collective action to alleviate its repercussions and dire
consequences for the planet. An optimal and effective solution to the problem could only
be reached through an approach that would address climate change in the context of
sustainable development. As the subject of climate was part and parcel of development, the
processes to address it must begin with the developing countries.
To that end, he recalled two important elements of the 1992 Rio Declaration: those who
brought about climate change in the first place, alone bore the financial burden of the
damage done; and the development process must neither be sacrificed nor compromised due to
climate change. He said that it was noteworthy that the negotiations on the Kyoto Protocol
had completely overlooked the subject of development, which had led to a failure to
effectively address the issue. The inability to produce a single comprehensive report on
the twin questions of climate change and sustainable development was indicative of that
failure.
Any successful solution to the climate change problem must emerge as a part of an
integrated approach to sustainable development, he continued. He posed a series of
questions that the international community must ask itself, including what the impact of
population density, income levels, energy and carbon concentration was. The answer to
those and other questions -- questions that could not be raised in the Council -- would
require in-depth and detailed studies, which must precede the formulation of precise
policies or recommendations.
Much had been said and written about the threats emanating from climate change and, as the
picture was becoming clearer, the question could not be addressed by debates limited
exclusively to the Security Council. “We need mechanisms capable of enforcing their
resolutions, provided that they are of wider representation,” he said. He added that
Qatar did not believe that the Council was the optimal mechanism to address the question
of climate change, because the power line-up in the 15-nation body lacked balance. What
was needed was a specialized, competent and expanded membership forum like the Commission
on Sustainable Development, the Economic and Social Council and, first and foremost, the
General Assembly.
ALEJANDRO D. WOLFF ( United States) said climate change
presented serious challenges. Under the presidency of the United Kingdom two years ago,
the Group of Eight leaders meeting in Gleneagles, Scotland, had
emphasized that energy, security, climate change and sustainable development were
fundamentally linked. In consultations with development partners, the Group of Eight
leaders had committed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve the global environment
and enhance energy security in ways that promoted human development. For its part, the
United States was, among other things, working with Brazil to advance biofuels and leading
the global efforts for the commercial deployment of near-zero-emission coal technology
through $1.65 billion in tax credits. At home, the United States was on track to meet its
goal of reducing the greenhouse gas intensity of its economy by 18 per cent from 2002 to
2012.
He went on to say that the Bush Administration had pledged some $500 million to the Global
Environment Facility (GEF) over the next four years, the largest contribution of any
country, to help developing countries address climate change issues. The most effective
way to bolster security and stability was to increase the capacity of States to govern
themselves effectively. States that could govern themselves effectively could anticipate
and manage change. He said that successful development strategies focused on education,
rule of law, human freedom and economic opportunity. The international community had
joined together in recognizing that at the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable
Development.
He said that well-governed countries grew and prospered. Economic growth provided the
resources, in both developed and developing countries, to address energy and environmental
challenges associated with climate change. He said that the United States had a long
history of extending help so that people could live in democratic societies with robust
economies and strong and stable Governments. It continued to support working with
freedom-loving people everywhere to face the future with confidence and determination.
JEAN-MARC DE LA SABLIÈRE ( France) saluted the United Kingdom presidency
for having planned today’s debate. Climate change was among the main threats to the
future of humankind. It was a basic threat, whose consequences were already affecting the
world. Its possible impact on international peace and security had been outlined in a
useful concept paper presented by the United Kingdom. The awareness of the problem was
growing, but it had not yet been translated into concerted action to reduce the damage.
The Security Council was certainly not the main -- and the only forum -- to address the
issue. The Framework Convention on Climate Change clearly played a central role. However,
the Council could not ignore the threats to peace and security caused by climate change.
Everyone had a role to play. All the climate change threats were real and would affect
security among nations.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had issued its report that included
scientifically corroborated conclusions, he continued. On 6 April, the Panel had concluded
that climate change phenomena would cause extreme natural disasters, lead to serious food
crises and increase health dangers, because of the changes in the ecosystems. There was
convincing evidence of the dangers. Clearly, depletion of resources could increase
competition for food, energy and water. Other dangers included the loss of arable land,
natural disasters and a rise in water levels, which could lead to an increase in the
number of refugees and cause uncontrollable migratory flows. No one was immune, but the
impact would be greater where accompanied by pre-existing vulnerability. The most
vulnerable countries would pay the highest price, because of their low capacity to
respond. The situation required decisive, urgent collective action to mitigate climate
change and reduce its consequences to a tolerable level. The cost of failure to act was
infinitely greater than the cost of taking action.
The issue fell within the Security Council’s mandate to prevent conflicts, he said.
Thus, it was the duty of the Council to consider what could be done in terms of preventive
diplomacy. The Secretary-General could reach out to areas where climate change could have
an impact on peace. The consequences of climate change should be mainstreamed in risk
analysis by the Secretariat. The Council, in its efforts to resolve conflicts, must also
integrate the depletion of resources dimension. That was already an important factor for
conflict in Africa. Conflict prevention meant mobilization of all instruments in support
of the efforts of developing countries. The Council might promote integration of the
security, environmental, social and other dimensions of the issue, since poverty and
environmental degradation could no longer be considered isolated threats. Recognizing the
importance of the issue, France had also proposed creation of a United Nations organ
devoted to the environment, in addition to UNEP. Also, the international community could
not win the battle against climate change, unless it implemented existing instruments.
LIU ZHENMIN ( China) said that the international
community was fully aware that climate change would affect national economic and social
development, and was related to the sustainable development of human society. China was,
therefore, ready and willing to discuss with other countries how to reinforce
international cooperation and jointly respond to climate change. The issue could have
certain security implications, but, generally speaking, it was, in essence, an issue of
sustainable development. The Framework Convention on Climate Change had laid down the
fundamental principles for the international community’s response to climate change.
The Kyoto Protocol had set up targets for developed countries -- limited, but measurable
-- for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The Conference of the parties of the Convention,
the Commission on Sustainable Development and UNEP were all involved in related
discussions and actions. To effectively respond to climate change, it was necessary to
follow the principle of “common, but differentiated, responsibilities” set forth
in the Convention, respect existing arrangements, strengthen cooperation and encourage
more action.
Climate change solutions required the concerted effort of the international community, he
continued. Discussing the issue in the Security Council would not help countries in their
efforts, and it would be hard for the Council to assist developing countries affected by
climate change to find more effective adaptations. Discussions on climate change should be
conducted within the framework that allowed participation by all parties. The
developing countries believed that the Security Council did not have expertise and did not
allow extensive participation in decision-making. It would not help produce
widely acceptable proposals. Discussions in today’s meeting should be regarded as an
exception, with neither outcome documents, nor follow-up actions.
The Chinese Government attached great importance to climate change, he added. As a
developing country, China had formulated its national sustainable development strategy as
early as 15 years ago. It was now formulating a national response strategy for climate
change. China would continue to vigorously implement its sustainable development strategy
and make its contribution to addressing climate change in its own way. He supported
conducting full and pragmatic discussions on related issues within the mechanisms of the
Climate Change Convention. China also favoured international cooperation on clean
development. At the end of this month, discussions on climate change would be conducted at
the fifteenth session of the Commission on Sustainable Development. He looked forward to
working with other countries for climate change solutions.
BAN KI-MOON, United Nations Secretary-General, said that, throughout
human history, people and countries had fought over natural resources. From livestock,
watering holes and fertile land, to trade routes, fish stocks, spices, sugar, oil, gold
and other precious commodities. War had too often been the means to secure possession of
scarce resources. Even today, the uninterrupted supply of fuel and minerals was a key
element of geopolitical considerations.
Things were easier at times of plenty, when all could share in the abundance, even if to
different degrees. “But, when resources are scarce -- whether energy, water or arable
land -- our fragile ecosystems become strained, as do the coping mechanisms of groups and
individuals,” he said, adding: “This can lead to a breakdown of established
codes of conduct, and even outright conflict.”
In a series of reports on conflict prevention, he said that former United Nations
Secretary-General Kofi Annan had pointed to the threats emanating from environmental
degradation and resource scarcity. Quoting from the latest of the reports, he said:
“Environmental degradation has the potential to destabilize already conflict-prone
regions, especially when compounded by inequitable access or politicization of access to
scarce resources. I urge Member States to renew their efforts to agree on ways that allow
all of us to live sustainably within the planet’s means.”
Mr. Ban said he wanted to renew and amplify that call. Compared to the cost of conflict
and its consequences, the cost of prevention was far lower -- in financial terms, but,
most importantly, in the cost of human lives and life quality. He added that he firmly
believed that, today, all countries recognized that climate change, in particular,
required a long-term global response, in line with the latest scientific findings and
compatible with economic and social development.
According to the most recent assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
the planet’s warming was unequivocal, its impact was clearly noticeable and it was
beyond doubt that human activities had been contributing considerably to it, he went on.
Adverse effects were already being felt in many areas, including agriculture and food
security; oceans and coastal areas; biodiversity and ecosystems; water resources; human
health; human settlements; energy, transport and industry; and in extreme weather events.
“Projected changes in the earth’s climate are, thus, not only an environmental
concern. They can also have serious social and economic implications, and -- as the
Council points up today -- issues of energy and climate change can have implications for
peace and security,” he said. That was especially true in vulnerable regions that
faced multiple stresses at the same time -- pre-existing conflict, poverty, unequal access
to resources, weak institutions, food insecurity and incidence of diseases, such as
HIV/AIDS.
By example, he asked the Council members to consider some scenarios – “all
alarming, though not alarmist” -- among others, the adverse effects of changing
weather patterns, such as floods and droughts, and related economic costs, including
compensation for lost land, could risk polarizing society and marginalizing communities.
That, in turn, could weaken the institutional capacity of States to resolve conflict
through peaceful and democratic means, to ensure social cohesion and to safeguard human
rights.
Offering another sobering scenario, he asked the Council to consider that migration,
driven by factors such as climate change, could deepen tensions and conflicts,
particularly in regions with large numbers of internally displaced persons and refugees.
Further, scarce resources, especially water and food, could help transform peaceful
competition into violence. “Limited or threatened access to energy is already known
to be a powerful driver of conflict. Our changing planet risks making it more so,” he
said.
While those were only possible scenarios, the international community could not sit back
and watch to see whether they turned into reality. The entire multilateral machinery
needed to come together to prevent it from becoming so, he said. “We must focus more
clearly on the benefits of early action,” he said. “The resources of civil
society and the private sector must be brought in. And this Council has a role to play in
working with other competent intergovernmental bodies to address the possible root causes
of conflict discussed today.”
BEZLAN ISHAN JENIE (Indonesia) supported the position of the Non-Aligned
Movement and said that, while his delegation could agree with the objectives of
today’s debate, it believed that the issue was being addressed effectively in other
fora, including the Commission on Sustainable Development, which would deliberate on the
issue of energy and climate change at its fifteenth session. Future threats to security
posed by climate change must be avoided and he called on all States to adhere to the Rio
principles, especially the principle of common but differentiated responsibility, the
“Agenda 21”, the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation, the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol. Developed countries should
immediately fulfil their commitments, particularly with regard to means of implementation.
Without that, the adverse impact on the environment would not only continue, but also
increase poverty and impede economic development -- an issue closely linked to potential
security threats.
Realizing the formidable challenges of energy and climate change, the international
community should seize the opportunity to reach a global consensus on ways to adapt and
mitigate climate change in the relevant fora, he added. The upcoming session of the
Commission on Sustainable Development and the thirteenth Conference of the Parties of the
Climate Change Convention in Bali in December were two very important forums in which the
issue of climate change and energy should be deliberated. The success of those meetings
would contribute to creating a conducive environment that could prevent the potential
negative effects of climate change on security.
ALBERTO ARIAS ( Panama) said that there was a broadly recognized link
between the availability of clean reliable energy and the ability of peoples to achieve
sustainable development. But, it was clear that the international community still needed
to further study the impact of socio-economic growth on global warming, as well as on
international peace and security. The answers should be pursued at all levels, with a view
towards integrated and synergistic approaches. All United Nations organs should debate the
impacts of climate change, in accordance with their respective mandates.
The Council had, from time to time, held debates on issues that fell under the competence
of other bodies. The Council’s debates served to raise awareness of issues that were
at the top of the global agenda. There was no doubt that there were some security concerns
attendant with the climate change phenomenon, including the effects of land and resource
degradation that led to crop depletion and food insecurity. Those and other issues needed
to be addressed urgently and head on. Indeed, it was the very gradual build-up of the
effects of climate change that made dealing with the phenomenon such a pressing matter,
for, in the words of T. S. Eliot: “This is how the world ends, not with a bang, but
with a whimper.”
DUMISANI KUMALO ( South Africa) underscored that today’s debate did
not fall within the mandate of the Council and would be better addressed in other forums.
Adopted in 1992, the Rio principles included the principle of common but differentiated
responsibility, which was fundamental to any debate on climate change. The World Summit in
Johannesburg had reaffirmed that principle and assigned the General Assembly, Economic and
Social Council, Commission on Sustainable Development and UNEP, as well as the Climate
Change Convention and the Kyoto Protocol, with the responsibility of following up on
climate change and sustainable development.
Recent reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had reconfirmed that
Africa was one of the vulnerable continents because of multiple stresses and low capacity,
he continued. Some of the impacts for Africa included the fact that, by 2020, between 75
million and 250 million people were projected to suffer exposure to an increase in water
stress due to climate change. Agricultural production, including access to food, was
expected to be severely compromised. Other issues included decreasing fisheries and
resources of lakes, as well as a projected sea-level rise, which would affect low-lying
areas.
The costs of adapting could amount to some 5 to 10 per cent of gross domestic product
(GDP), he said. Clearly, an inequitable global response, where the largest emitters in the
developed world did not shoulder their respective responsibilities to mitigate and assist
others to adapt, could contribute to instability and exacerbate conflict potential.
Developed countries should take the lead in funding the adaptation activities. All
countries should meet their obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. The world was relatively
unprepared to deal with disasters, and the vulnerable countries could not bear the brunt
of the costs. A new focus was needed on predicting, preventing and handling
climate-related disasters. The Climate Change Convention and Kyoto were in place, and he
looked forward to the Bali meeting later this year.
He added that all countries should honour the existing instruments, in order to avoid
future disasters. The issues discussed here were, first and foremost, developmental in
nature, and would be best dealt with by the General Assembly. The mandate of the Council
did not deal with such matters. It was vital for all Member States to promote sustainable
development, especially the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, and
fully implement Agenda 21. South Africa attached great importance to the reassurance by
the United Kingdom that today’s meeting would not result in any outcome or summary.
He also hoped that the discussions would not in any way elevate the issue of climate or
environment to being an agenda item of the Council.
VITALY CHURKIN ( Russian Federation) said that his country had been an
active participant in global efforts to address climate change. Indeed, it had been
Russia’s decision to ratify the Kyoto Protocol that had brought that important
instrument into existence. Since then, the Russian Federation had significantly reduced
its greenhouse gas emissions and it intended to continue to carry out the quantitative
commitments it had undertaken under the Kyoto Protocol through 2012. His Government
believed that all future action in the area of global warming and climate change should be
based on sound scientific information. He appealed to the international community to avoid
panic and to consider the issue of climate change in all its aspects in a comprehensive
manner and within the appropriate international forums, such as the World Meteorological
Organization, the General Assembly and the Commission on Sustainable Development, among
others. The Security Council should only deal with issues directly under its mandate, he
added.
JORGE VOTO-BERNALES ( Peru) welcomed the United Kingdom’s
initiative. In the last weeks, the presentation of reports by the International Panel on
Climate Change had confirmed the world’s tendencies as a result of climate change.
The projections would have significant effects on the environment, food security and human
society in general. It was important to consider their impact on international peace and
security, as well. The threats to international peace and security would include poverty,
degradation of the environment and natural disasters. Of even more concern was the fact
that climate change would lead to flooding, droughts and serious storms. Climate change
could exacerbate social and economic conditions, which could lead to conflicts and
exclusion. The Council had drawn attention to that situation.
Continuing, he said that climate change was the result of the actions of man, and it was
necessary to address that responsibly. Any efforts to change course would not have an
immediate effect, however, even if countries did drastically reduce greenhouse gas
emissions now. Attention, therefore, should be focused on prevention and not reaction to
possible effects on international peace and security. That was Peru’s approach on the
national level. The country was concerned about the effects of climate change on
stability. The population of Peru lived in a high diversity of ecosystems, and the high
intensity and frequency of El Niño had serious effects on the population. The
country’s glaciers were also affected, leading to water supply problems. The Peruvian
Amazon forest, the second largest in Latin America, would also be affected.
Climate change was a problem of global dimensions and could only be faced through
multilateral action by the whole international community within the framework already
available, he said. Based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibility, it
was important to strengthen the Kyoto Protocol and meet its targets. What was required was
a firm will and political cooperation within competent bodies to avoid the worst
scenarios. The greatest challenge was to face the situation collectively, as a matter of
urgency.
Council President, Ms. BECKETT, Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom, speaking
in her national capacity, said that climate change was transforming the way the
international community thought about security. Indeed, scientific evidence had confirmed,
and in some cases exceeded, everyone’s worst fears about the current and future
impacts of the phenomenon. She said it was clear that those impacts went beyond the
environmental to the very heart of the security agenda. One had only to look at the
results of crop failure and lingering drought, sea-level changes, river basin degradation
and the consequences of food insecurity.
Charged with the maintenance of international peace and security, she continued, the
Security Council could go a long way towards building a shared understanding of what the
effects of climate change would mean to international peace and security, now and in the
future. Climate change was a threat multiplier. The United Kingdom agreed that a full
account of climate risks should be undertaken when examining the root causes of conflict.
The fact that so many delegations without membership in the Council had chosen to speak
was proof of the bitter truth that instability was first visited upon those that were
already struggling with other development and security concerns.
She stressed that, for the United Kingdom, climate change was a security issue, but not of
“narrow national security”. It was about collective security in an increasingly
fragile world for all. She said that a new, low-carbon and sustainable economy must be
built, not at the expense of development, but to make development better and more
attainable for all. Further, the United Kingdom did not believe that the debate on global
warming, climate change and energy was an “either/or”. Indeed, the United
Kingdom would welcome similar debates in other forums, be it in the General Assembly or
the Economic and Social Council, she said, adding that she was looking forward to the
outcome of the upcoming session of the Commission on Sustainable Development in May, which
would address climate change and energy. She said that climate change was not just of
grave concern, but of common concern. It was important for everyone to enjoy better
prospects for security. To that end, “climate change can bring us together, if we
have the wisdom to prevent it from driving us apart”, she declared.
HEIDEMARIE WIECZOREK-ZEUL, Minister for Economic Cooperation and Development of
Germany, speaking on behalf of the European Union and associated States, said
that the security implications of climate change should receive more attention and she,
therefore, welcomed today’s opportunity to convey the Union’s perspective on
that matter. The Council usually dealt with more imminent threats to international peace
and security, but less obvious and more distant drivers of conflict should not be
neglected. The Security Council was committed to a culture of prevention, as incorporated
in resolution 1625, and there was a clear link between climate change and the need for
conflict prevention. Recent findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
provided clear evidence that the globe was already being heavily affected by man-made
temperature increases. Some of the profound changes in many of the earth’s natural
systems projected by the Panel would have direct or indirect implications on security.
The cost of action on climate change was far outweighed by the consequences of inaction,
she stressed. There was a need for a global framework of risk management -– based on
mitigation and adaptation -- to address the challenges. To keep the changes of the
world’s climate within manageable limits, it was necessary to formulate a
forward-looking climate and energy policy. The world was expecting new and determined
measures from Governments and the United Nations that would shape the future of humanity.
The Union was prepared to play its part, and was calling upon others to do the same. In
March, the Union had put itself on a fast track to a low-carbon economy, having decided to
unilaterally reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent by 2020, compared to the
level of 1990, regardless of progress made in international negotiations for a post-2012
agreement. Yet, since the Union was responsible for only 15 per cent of worldwide
emissions, the effects of its reductions would be limited. It was necessary to come to a
global and comprehensive agreement on how to combat climate change beyond 2012. She
offered a binding 30 per cent target, compared to 1990, provided other developed countries
took similar steps, and economically more advanced developing countries adequately
contributed, according to their responsibilities and capabilities. The Union had also
adopted a binding target for increased use of renewable energies.
Concerning adaptation, she said that it was necessary to consider the consequences of
unavoidable climate change. The security dimension should be duly reflected in future
research and reports on the effects of climate change. A framework of preventive diplomacy
was needed, and climate change should be addressed in a holistic and preventive manner,
like hunger, disease, poverty, water scarcity or migration. Realizing the interdependency
of those factors, it would be easier to come up with coherent and holistic approaches. No
country could tackle problems alone, and environmental, economic and energy decisions in
one part of the world directly or indirectly affected people in other parts, and could be
a root cause of conflict there. Sound environmental policies were, therefore, essential.
It was necessary to develop concrete strategies for coherent, integrated and holistic
responses of the United Nations family and institutions to address that challenge. Various
bodies should work hand in hand in a cooperative manner. No institution could claim an
exclusive competence for that cross-cutting issue. She was sure that today’s debate
would deliver a valuable and powerful message, which would contribute to the December
climate negotiations for a post-2012 framework, in Bali.
BERT KOENDERS, Minister for Development Cooperation of the Netherlands,
said that, while the Council’s primary responsibility was to maintain international
peace and security, and it tended to deal with current conflicts, there were times when
“we need to look beyond the horizon of current conflicts to explore the challenges
and threats the future may bring”. Recalling that the Council had held useful
discussions on the impact of HIV/AIDS on peace and security in Africa, he said that
millions of people would listen to and watch the planned “Live Earth” concerts
this coming July and they would wonder what the leaders of the world were doing about
global warming. The Council’s discussions today would underline the Council’s
commitment.
He said that the recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel had shown that urgent action
was needed to alleviate the impact of global warming. The world was being exposed to the
increasingly devastating effects of climate change, which would lead to far-reaching and
potentially dramatic consequences for security in regions throughout the world, such as
shortages of food and water, health problems, population movements and environmental and
social stress. He said that new sources of conflict might emerge and disasters might occur
more frequently, with more devastating effects. The United Nations estimated that, by
2010, the world would host some 50 million “environmental refugees”, without
even taking the effects of climate change into account.
Moreover, the Intergovernmental Panel had suggested that there was an 80 per cent chance
that the availability of water in subtropical areas would decline substantially. By 2050,
billions of people could be coping with inadequate or even nonexistent water supplies, he
said, stressing that climate change had social, economic, humanitarian and security
dimensions. It was also clear that peace and security and climate change were global
public goods of crucial importance. Though the poorest countries had contributed the least
to the phenomenon, they would be the most seriously affected by it. At the same time,
those countries lacked the knowledge, capacity and resources to deal with it.
“We have to ensure that countries can cope with the risks posed by climate
change,” he said, adding that, not only individual countries, but United Nations
agencies, the World Bank and other institutions, had an important role to play in ensuring
full-fledged disaster preparedness. Recalling the 2005 World Summit Outcome’s call
for a “culture of prevention”, he went on to urge the Secretary-General to alert
the Security Council to climate-related crisis situations that might endanger peace and
security. He also strongly encouraged the Secretary-General to press ahead with his
efforts to convene an international summit on climate change.
ABDULLA SHAHID, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs of the Maldives,
recalled that, some 20 years ago, his country’s President had said that for his
country, a mean sea-level rise of 2 metres would suffice to virtually submerge the entire
country of 1,190 small islands. That would be the death of a nation. Almost 20 years from
that General Assembly address, it was important to recall the efforts made by small
countries like the Maldives to draw the world’s attention to the urgency of climate
change and its consequences. For the people of the Maldives, dealing with climate change
was already an everyday fact of life. Over the past two decades, the country had seen
first hand the real, practical reality of climate change and sea-level rise. Today, over
60 per cent of its inhabited islands were facing varying degrees of coastal erosion, which
was threatening the human settlements on them.
He was heartened by the increased attention to environmental degradation and climate
change, he said. Today’s debate should stress the fact that close cooperation and
coordination among all principal organs was indispensable for the United Nations to remain
relevant and capable of meeting the existing and emerging threats and challenges. The
environment, energy and climate change had been dealt with by various organs, including
the General Assembly, Economic and Social Council, Commission on Sustainable Development
and UNEP, as well as the Climate Change Convention and the Kyoto Protocol. He supported
the view of the Group of 77 that it was vital for all Member States to promote sustainable
development by adhering to the Rio principles -- especially the principle of common but
differentiated responsibility -- and fully implementing Agenda 21. He also stressed an
urgent need to fulfil all other commitments, including the transfer of available
technologies to developing countries. Capacity-building was essential. He called on all
countries that had not done so to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.
Reaffirming the key role of energy in achieving the Millennium Development Goals, he also
said that his country had attained a number of those goals and was on track to achieving
many of the rest. However, ensuring environmental sustainability was a challenge that the
Maldives could not meet on its own. Next year, the country would embark upon a three-year
transition period, after which it would graduate from the least developed countries
category. However, its inherent vulnerabilities would remain. It was ironic that the
Indian Ocean tsunami had washed away 20 years of development work, only six days after the
General Assembly had adopted its resolution to graduate the Maldives from the list of
least developed countries. The Maldives had recently developed its first National
Adaptation Programme as part of actions to implement the Climate Change Convention.
Substantive financial resources were urgently required for speedy implementation of
adaptation projects by the most vulnerable countries, like the Maldives. He called for a
meaningful emission-reduction commitment for the post-2012 regime. Negotiations in that
regard should be accelerated, with a tangible commitment to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions to pre-industrial levels. The rich nations must demonstrate their leadership,
and accept the moral responsibility to safeguard the vulnerable, poor countries confronted
with climate change.
FARUKH AMIL ( Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the “Group of 77”
developing countries and China, said that his delegation believed that the
Council’s primary duty was to maintain international peace and security. Other
issues, including those related to economic and social development, were assigned to the
Economic and Social Council and the General Assembly. The ever-increasing encroachment of
the Security Council on the roles and responsibilities of the other main organs of the
United Nations represented a “distortion” of the principles and purposes of the
Charter, infringed on the authority of the other bodies and compromised the rights of the
Organization’s wider membership.
He said that the issues of energy and climate change were vital for sustainable
development, and responsibilities in that field belonged to the General Assembly, Economic
and Social Council and other relevant subsidiary bodies, including the Commission on
Sustainable Development and UNEP. The issue of climate change was also addressed in a
binding multilateral agreement in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change. No role had been envisioned for the Security Council. The Group of 77 was of the
view that it was vital for all Member States to promote sustainable development in line
with the Rio principles -- in particular common but differentiated responsibility -- and
to fully implement Agenda 21 and other commitments related to the provision of financial
resources, transfer of technology and capacity-building of developing countries.
The Group also maintained that the Kyoto Protocol was the appropriate forum to consider
the risks associated with climate change and action needed to address the phenomenon, in
accordance with principles enshrined in that instrument. It was inappropriate for the
Council to consider the issue of energy. The Group would reaffirm the key role of energy
in achieving the goals of sustainable development, poverty eradication and achieving the
Millennium Development Goals, and would, therefore, emphasize the role of the
international community for the provision of adequate and predictable financial resources
and technology transfer to that end. The Group also held that the decision by the Council
to hold this debate did not create a precedent or undermine the authority or mandate of
the relevant bodies and processes already addressing the issue.
PETER MAURER ( Switzerland) welcomed the United Kingdom’s initiative
and said that it was important for the Security Council to contribute to raising awareness
about the repercussions of environmental degradation on international peace and security.
He did not consider today’s debate an encroachment by the Security Council on the
responsibilities of the General Assembly. Climate change and environmental issues in
general were challenges to which different bodies would have to contribute from the
viewpoint of their respective mandates.
He was particularly concerned about the looming food and water insecurity in many parts of
the world, due to the cumulative effects of many factors, including population growth,
shortage of cultivable land, spreading land degradation and water-resource constraints.
Climate-related factors tended to aggravate the already overwhelming challenge of
producing more and healthier food, from less land with less water. The countries most
exposed to negative impacts were often those with inadequate means to adapt or take
necessary preventive measures. The negative impact of climate change could not be
mitigated simply by adapting energy policy priorities and technology innovations. Further
substantial efforts must be directed at reducing inequity, as well as economic and
socially disrupting disparities within and between countries. Member States had the
primary responsibility for conflict prevention and efforts to reduce the risks of
disaster. Switzerland would like to invite all stakeholders to participate in the first
session of the Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction, to take place in Geneva in
June. That high-level event aimed to raise awareness and consider ways and means of moving
disaster risk reduction higher up on the international agenda.
Regarding the impact on migration, he said that, in their efforts to better manage that
phenomenon, Member States were urged to respect their obligations towards international
law. In that respect, he highlighted the positive contribution made by the Inter-Agency
Standing Committee in adopting the Operational Guidelines on Human Rights and Natural
Disasters. The guidelines were increasingly used by humanitarian and development actors.
Environmental protection and sustainable development were the pillars of
Switzerland’s foreign policy, he continued. The country had longstanding experience
in research into environmental and conflict-related issues and was currently undertaking a
more structured analysis of the links between environmental degradation, the use of
natural resources and violent conflict. Each and every conflict hade its specificities
with regard to the environmental drivers of conflict. There were no simple answers. There
was, therefore, an obvious need to strengthen analytical capacities, in order to channel
targeted and authoritative input into the policy debate of the Council.
However, he added, potential risk factors should be examined on a case-by-case basis.
Where environmental factors were obvious elements affecting security, the Council might
wish to create the function of an environmental adviser, or strengthen its own capacities
in that area. When debating a specific conflict, the Council should listen to key
environmental expertise, and UNEP should be strengthened, so that it could respond to such
requests by the Council. He hoped that today’s debate would give impetus to decisive
action, including the need to strengthen system-wide coherence, as well as international
environmental governance.
ROBERT G. AISI ( Papua New Guinea), speaking on behalf of the Pacific
Islands Forum, said that the Forum’s members, some of the most vulnerable communities
in the world, were already experiencing the effects of climate change. The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had spotlighted the Pacific islands as countries
whose survival was at extreme risk. Many of the islands were not more than a few metres
above water, so a sea-level increase of as little as half a metre would completely
inundate those island States and threaten their populations.
He said that climate change was also expected to increase the intensity of tropical
cyclones and, while the scientific evidence on that point was not yet so clear, the
pattern of tropical storms over the past few years was definitely a cause for concern. He
said that, prior to 1985, the Cook Islands had been considered to be outside the main
cyclone belt and could expect a major twister every 20 years or so. But all that had
changed, he said, telling the Council that in 2005, in one month alone, five cyclones had
swept the Cook Island waters, three of which were classified at category 5 intensity. He
added that, in 2004, Niue had been hit by Cyclone Heta, with the ocean rising above the 30
metre cliffs, leaving two people dead and 20 per cent of the population homeless.
Turning next to highlight some other serious impacts of climate change, he said that
vector borne diseases such as malaria and dengue fever were on the rise in the upland
regions of his own country. He also said that the effects of El Niño would have a major
impact on the economy, due largely to changing sea temperatures and winds that would spark
a significant westward shift of major tuna stocks. “Climate change, climate
variability and sea-level rise are, therefore, not just environmental concerns, but also
economic, social and political issues for the Pacific Islands,” he said.
He stressed that, while the Islands were not “standing idly by”, but working
with development partners to take action to prepare for and mitigate the effects of
climate change related events, there was still a need to strengthen the Climate Change
Convention regime. Negotiations on future commitments of the international community
should, among other things, give equal priority to adaptation, as well as mitigation;
minimize the costs to developing countries of preventing dangerous climate change; promote
massive worldwide expansion of renewable energy; and give strong signals to industry that
climate change was a serious issue and that their input was needed to bolster the search
for solutions.
He said that the impact of climate change on small islands was no less threatening than
the dangers guns and bombs posed to large nations. Pacific Island nations were likely to
face massive dislocations of people, similar to population flows sparked by conflict. The
impact on identity and social cohesion were likely to cause as much resentment, hatred and
alienation as any refugee crisis. “The Security Council, charged with protecting
human rights and the integrity and security of States, is the paramount international
forum available to us,” he said. The Forum did not expect the Council to get involved
in Climate Change Convention negotiations, but it did expect the 15-nation body to keep
the issue of climate change under continuous review, to ensure that all countries
contributed to solving the problem and that those efforts were commensurate with their
resources and capacities. It also expected the Council to review particularly sensitive
issues, such as implications for sovereignty and international legal rights from the loss
of land, resources and people.
KENZO OSHIMA ( Japan) said that the global challenge of climate change
would require a global response. The United Nations should not only continue to play a
leading role, but also a stronger one, by involving all relevant organs and bodies of the
system, including the Security Council, as relevant to their respective mandates, because
doing so was essential for system-wide coherence on the issue. Three issues that required
urgent attention included greenhouse gas emissions, the use of clean energy and
adaptation.
Stressing the overriding importance of controlling greenhouse gas emissions and creating
an effective post-Kyoto framework, he said that it was of the utmost importance that the
maximum number of countries responsible for any significant emissions participate in that
effort, developed and developing countries alike. Currently, only some 30 per cent of the
world’s total greenhouse gas emissions were covered by the parties to the Kyoto
protocol. That was grossly and dangerously inadequate. Any new post-Kyoto arrangement must
seek to enable all countries to cut emissions according to their ability, thus maximizing
emission controls on a truly global basis. In doing so, it was necessary to acknowledge
the close link between development and climate change strategies. In that connection, he
said that, last week, Japan and China had issued a statement on further enhancement of
cooperation in the area of environmental protection, and both sides had pledged to
actively participate in the process towards construction of an effective beyond-2012
framework.
Supporting the development and use of clean energy, including nuclear and renewable
energy, and effective energy-saving technologies, he said that it was obviously an
essential part of any effort to reduce the level of greenhouse gas. Cooperation and
exchanges on such technology at all levels should be strengthened. United Nations agencies
had an important role to play in that regard, including facilitation of the transfer of
advanced clean energy and energy-saving technology to developing countries, which should
be encouraged in any way possible.
He stressed the importance of preventing, mitigating and adapting to the negative effects
of climate change. Such action should be taken now, because global warming, with all its
potential consequences, was here to stay, and would get worse before it got better.
Governments had set out what needed to be done to reduce vulnerabilities and disaster
risks in the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015, agreed at the World Conference on
Disaster Reduction in Japan in January 2005. Urgent action was needed to simultaneously
reduce the emissions causing climate change and adapt to the changes that were
unavoidable, in implementation of the Hyogo document.
He welcomed Secretary-General Ban’s decision to make climate change one of his
priorities, and said that Japan would welcome any initiative to strengthen the United
Nations role and enhance its agenda in that area. To that end, he proposed that the
Secretary-General be requested, perhaps not by the Council, but more appropriately by the
Assembly, to present recommendations on how the United Nations system as a whole could
best organize itself, so that it would be able to address that matter more effectively and
coherently. The report should address such issues as the role and function of the
Inter-Agency Secretariat of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. As for his
country’s role, he said that climate change was expected to remain high on the agenda
for the Group of Eight next year, when Japan would be hosting the Summit. Japan gave high
priority to projects related to climate change in its bilateral and multilateral
development cooperation and partnership arrangements with countries of Asia and the
Pacific, including the Pacific Island Forum, Africa, the Caribbean Community and others.
KAIRE MUNIONGANDA MBUENDE ( Namibia) said the United Nations Charter had
recognized the link between social and economic development and peace and security, and
the Economic and Social Council had been created with a view to addressing that link.
Indeed, threats to peace and security arising from social and economic factors would best
be addressed through investment in economic development, while threats brought about by
climate change and global warming would best be addressed through instruments designed to
deal with the environment. For Namibia, climate change was not an academic exercise, but a
life or death matter. For that reason, the country’s delegation would not question
the legitimacy of holding the current debate in the Security Council, seeing that there
was room for reflection on various angles of the issue. However, action must be taken by
the appropriate organs.
He said developing countries, in particular, had been subjected to what could be described
as “low intensity biological or chemical warfare”. Greenhouse gases were
destroying plants, animals and human beings. Namibia’s two deserts were spreading,
while rising sea levels could culminate in flooding. The change in temperature had allowed
malaria-carrying mosquitoes to extend their range, but attempts to produce cheaper
generics had been met with resistance from multinational pharmaceuticals. Plants used for
traditional medicine were in danger of becoming extinct, further increasing the impact of
climate change on health.
He said the world knew what caused climate change, and also knew who were responsible.
Namibia was encouraged by the steps taken by some industrialized countries to reduce
greenhouse gases, since every step to curb emissions was important. But climate adaptation
would be a costly exercise for Namibia -- the solution suggested by some experts that poor
regions reliant on agriculture should encourage people to shift out of farming and into
urban areas was not sustainable, given the high rate of urban unemployment. Meanwhile,
official development assistance had declined from $110 per capita in the 1990s to $60 per
capita in 2005. The number of bilateral donors was also decreasing.
He said high hopes had been placed in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change and the Kyoto Protocol, in which provisions had been made for developed countries
to provide developing countries with the means to protect themselves from the consequences
of climate change. But, developed countries continued to pay lip service to reducing the
levels of greenhouse gas emissions. For its part, Namibia intended to recommend, to the
appropriate organs, a mechanism to monitor and ensure compliance of States parties to the
Convention.
CHRISTOPHER HACKETT ( Barbados) said that, as his country was caught
squarely in the cross-hairs of the current global emergency, it was ever conscious of the
enormous challenges posed to its sustainable development by climate change and its
attendant impacts. Developing countries were most vulnerable in that regard and were least
able to protect themselves. For small island developing States, the challenges were even
more complex and their needs more urgent, with sea-level rise, hurricanes and floods
threatening their very existence, despite their negligible contribution to the problem.
There was now greater scientific certainty that dangerous climate change was already
occurring and, as the Stern report on climate change had put it, if the world continued to
ignore climate change, the impact on the global economy would be “on a scale similar
to those associated with the great wars and the economic depression of the first half of
the twentieth century”. There was no excuse -- scientific or otherwise -- to delay
immediate action.
There was still a glimmer of hope that, if the international community acted rapidly, it
could soften the blow of the looming climate catastrophe, particularly on the poorest and
most vulnerable. Those who had historically contributed most to that problem had a moral
and legal obligation to assume primary responsibility. Developed countries must take the
lead in significantly reducing harmful greenhouse gas emissions and providing the
necessary financial and technological assistance to developing countries. The Kyoto
Protocol should not be abandoned. Those that continued to reject their agreed commitments
under that instrument must exercise good judgement, demonstrate good global citizenship
and show their leadership. The international community must attach the highest priority to
completing ongoing climate change negotiations within the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change on a post-2012 arrangement by the end of 2008. Any new global
agreement must lead to the achievement of substantial emission reduction in the shortest
time frame possible and significantly increase the level of resources available to
vulnerable countries, particularly small island developing States and least developed
countries.
He added that today’s debate should inspire the other principal organs of the United
Nations to fully assume their Charter responsibilities in addressing the problem. While
the Convention on Climate Change remained the primary forum for addressing the matter,
consistent with Assembly resolution 61/16, the Economic and Social Council should convene
a special session on the level of Foreign Ministers in September, on the margins of the
main part of the General Assembly session, to discuss the sustainable development impacts
of climate change. That would provide much-needed impetus to the negotiations in Bali in
December. He also emphasized the need for development partners to join Barbados and other
small island States in the full and rapid implementation of the Barbados Programme of
Action and Mauritius Strategy, of which the issues of climate change and energy were
important components.
VIKTOR KRYZHANIVSKYI ( Ukraine) said that world leaders at the 2005
Summit had reaffirmed the emerging belief that security and development were closely
linked. Indeed, it was becoming increasingly clear that there could be no security without
sound economic systems, fair trade regimes, social welfare and rule of law. But how could
all those be achieved if the forces of nature changed the shape of continents, sparked
dramatic changes in human behaviour and undermined well-planned human achievements? Recent
studies had shown that climate change, global warming and pollution could have sudden and
dramatic impacts if not urgently and effectively addressed.
He said that modern industrial development, in particular energy production, was the main
source of environmental degradation. Therefore, it was crucial that climate change and
security were tackled jointly to realize sustainable development for all. The Ukraine
called for, among other things, relevant polices and prescriptions that built on
appropriate incentives, public-private partnerships, low-carbon emitting technologies and
innovations. To that end, he particularly underscored the importance of the recent reports
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which had been convened to compile and
synthesize scientific and technical data and socio-economic information on the phenomenon.
He added that, in order to achieve collective objectives aimed at combating climate
change, the international community must move quickly to implement domestic greenhouse gas
reduction measures and promote the full and effective use of relevant internationally
agreed mechanisms.
KHALED ALY ELBAKLY ( Egypt) said that the subject of today’s debate
lay clearly and squarely within the realm and mandate of other bodies of the United
Nations system, especially the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council. The
Security Council’s debate also coincided with the preparations for the Commission on
Sustainable Development session on the same subject, which was also addressed through the
Climate Change Convention and the Kyoto Protocol. He was concerned with the Council’s
encroachment on the mandates and responsibilities of other United Nations bodies, as well
as indifference to the repeated demands by Member States to put an end to that dangerous
and unjustified practice, leaving the way open for every President of the Council to
decide on the theme of focus, even if it was totally beyond the mandate. That emphasized
the importance of reforming the methods of work of the Security Council, together with
expansion of its membership. It was also necessary for the General Assembly to take more
decisive measures to stop such infringement.
In light of recent reports, scientific studies and the latest Secretary-General’s
report on climate change, there was no room for arguing against the dangers of climate
change and its impacts on humanity, he continued. However, objectivity required focusing
on the circumstances that had led the world to the current dangerous juncture, and the
proper way to address it. Developed countries were responsible for climate change.
Developing countries -- including Egypt -- viewed the debate in the Security Council as an
attempt on the part of those countries to shrug off their responsibilities in that regard.
The right way to combat climate change was clear: all parties -- developed and developing
-- should implement their commitments according to the principle of “common but
differentiated responsibilities”, and not according to the principle of “shared
responsibilities”, which some countries were seeking to promote. It was also
necessary to deal with the causes and adaptation.
ROBERT HILL ( Australia) said that, over the coming decades, climate
change would progressively alter biospheres and sea levels, as well as add incrementally
to the intensity of climate-related events, such as cyclones and droughts. By moving early
to address the risks, the international community could do much to reduce the potential
threats to human well-being and security. Australia was particularly vulnerable to climate
change, and it was the planet’s most arid continent and uniquely susceptible to
drought. Global action to mitigate climate change could temper its future effects, and the
burden of responsibility fell on to the world’s major greenhouse gas emitters.
Australia was playing its part and had already dedicated billions of dollars to develop,
prove and deploy low-emissions technologies throughout the country. He said that the
Government was also supporting more efficient energy use, the uptake of renewable energy
and reduction in land clearing. As a result of those and other measures, Australia was
tracking well to meet its targets under the Kyoto Protocol. He said that Australia would
also help others in the region and beyond to adapt to the future impacts of climate
change, cognizant that the least developed nations were likely to be less likely to
respond to the effects of the phenomenon.
He encouraged other countries to further strengthen their support for disaster mitigation,
preparedness and response, and commended the work of the United Nations International
Strategy for Disaster Reduction in coordinating the implementation of the Hyogo framework
for action. That framework represented a global blueprint for building the resilience of
nations and their communities on the impact of disasters.
ROSEMARY BANKS ( New Zealand) said that, in contributing to the debate,
her country was able to offer the perspectives of a small country that recognized that the
future was dependent on sustainable long-term strategies for its economy, society,
environment, culture and way of life. Today, Governments were becoming more aware that the
effects of climate change were much more than threats to the environment alone. They also
threatened some of the most fundamental needs of their citizens: a safe place to live;
access to water; health; food; and the ability to earn a living. When those needs were
threatened, whole societies were at risk of instability. So it was entirely appropriate
that the Council was discussing the security dimensions of climate change.
Sustainable development, including responses to climate change, and energy security needed
to be considered together, she said. She was pleased that the Commission for Sustainable
Development was bringing some of those themes together in its current cycle. New Zealand
was developing its energy and climate change policies in tandem, in particular focusing on
ways to maximize the energy derived from renewable sources and promoting diversity in its
energy supply. The use of low-emissions technologies and improving energy efficiency were
fundamental to both industrialized and developing countries. Energy issues were also a
major challenge for the Pacific. In recognition of that, Pacific Energy Ministers would be
meeting at the end of April to discuss how the region might address those challenges,
particularly in the renewable energy sector.
Many of the countries in the Pacific were among the most vulnerable to climate change
impacts, she said. That was likely to exacerbate such issues as access to fresh water and
vulnerability to cyclones, drought or flooding. The Mauritius implementation strategy
spoke of the existential risks that climate change and sea level rise posed to small
island developing States. It also noted ongoing risks posed to the sustainable development
of those nations and the priority that should be given to adaptation.
AFELEE F. PITA ( Tuvalu) said that, as with the issue of security threats
of HIV/AIDS, it was strongly believed that the Security Council should permanently place
on its agenda the issue of climate change and environmental security. It was a topic of
extreme importance to small, atoll nations like Tuvalu, whose vulnerability to the impacts
of climate change were highlighted in the Intergovernmental Panel’s recent report.
Coral reefs and fish stocks were being affected. There was an increased threat from severe
cyclones and water shortages. The possibility of rising sea levels had caused many people
to consider migrating, threatening Tuvalu’s nationhood. Such a reality constituted an
infringement on the people’s rights to nationality and statehood as constituted under
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international instruments.
He said the world had moved from the cold war to the “warming war”, in which
chimney stacks and exhaust pipes were the weapons, and it was a “chemical war of
immense proportions”. The world needed a mix of energy sources easily accessible to
all countries, since it was clear from ongoing world crises that there were security
dimensions to prohibitive access to and use of energy. Imported fossil fuel was one of the
greatest drains on Tuvalu’s economy, and the high costs of energy threatened the
country’s security. The Security Council was called on to understand and respond to
such new concepts of security and conflict.
He said the threat posed by climate change demanded solutions at the highest level of
Government, and Tuvalu strongly recommended a Security Council resolution to urge the
Secretary-General to convene a world leader’s summit on the subject soon. Such a
summit should create the impetus to establish a new economic forum to boost access to
environmentally friendly, energy security options for all countries. However, Tuvalu and
many small island developing States could not accept nuclear and clean fossil fuels as
part of the solution, due to security risks to their fragile environment. Rather,
solutions should focus on renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies. The world
also needed a global strategy on adaptation and disaster risk reduction. The Security
Council should review its mandate to fully embrace the concept of environmental security.
MUHAMMAD ALI SORCAR ( Bangladesh) said energy and environment issues were
critically important to the debate on sustainable development, particularly for developing
countries. But, even though the development aspects of the phenomenon had been extensively
deliberated, the security implications of global warming had not merited consideration by
intergovernmental bodies in the United Nations. The issue had been the subject of study
outside the world body and, while the interrelation between climate, energy and security
was still being examined, years of general consideration had proved that there was little
doubt that the global climate was changing, relentlessly and inexorably, with perhaps dire
consequences for the planet. He said that the report of the Intergovernmental Panel had
stated that, unless very drastic measures were taken, humanity would face unprecedented
challenges.
He said that projects for Bangladesh were ominous. The Country was basically a vast river
delta -- split nearly in half by two mighty rivers, the Ganges and the Brahmaputra –-
that was home to some 147 million people. With climate warming, experts had posited that
the Himalayan snows would melt and torrential waters would stream down from the mountains
and flood the alluvial plains. At the same time, with sea-level rise, saline water would
flow up from the south and meet the melting mountain ice. Millions of people would be
caught in between. with nowhere to go. While what might come next would take some
imagination, the mere thought of the impact of those joint phenomena was sufficient reason
to look seriously for ways to “prevent a future which none of us will be able to
handle”, he said.
Bangladesh would not be the only country affected by such change, and it was clear that,
with the sunset date of the Kyoto Protocol fast approaching, all nations needed to map out
a plan for the future. It was regrettable that no action had been taken and, now, the
international community needed to urgently look for mechanisms, institutions and
consensus-building processes that would motivate everyone to join forces to avoid “a
horrendous future of our own making”. To that end, he welcomed the growing calls for
the convening of a world summit on climate change and encouraged the Secretary-General to
explore the possibilities of launching talks on such an event, which would give the
international community an opportunity to take a fresh look at common and differentiated
responsibilities.
PUI LEONG ( Venezuela) supported the position of the Group of 77 and the
Non-Aligned Movement and said that her country was aware of the seriousness of the climate
change situation. However, the Security Council was not the appropriate body to deal with
that subject. The Council should adjust its actions to the spirit and letter of the
Charter of the United Nations. Venezuela considered that each State was sovereign in
determining its priorities in that area, as had been recognized by various international
instruments. Energy was a matter of sovereignty, and every country had the authority to
decide on the use of its natural resources and on its environmental and energy policy.
Interference by the Council could have adverse effects in that regard. To bring to the
Council the matters that were not within its purview could lead to an illusion that the
body was democratic, while that was far from the case.
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol, to which
Venezuela was a party, represented the most appropriate framework for dealing with climate
change, she said. Dealing with it in other forums could produce an impression of an effort
to dilute the responsibility of developed countries for greenhouse gas emissions. The
United States, whose economy produced the greatest amount of greenhouse gas emissions,
needed to contribute to the objectives of the Convention and its Protocol. Once there was
a joint responsibility to mitigate the effect of climate change, there was also
differentiated responsibility to take into account the factors that had led to the damage
to the environment and the capacity of countries. Stereotypes should not be applied to the
efforts to solve the problem. It was necessary to carry out studies to determine the real
dimensions of the problem and consider possible measures to mitigate their effects, in
particular for vulnerable States. Countries producing the greatest amount of greenhouse
gases should take the responsibility to reduce their levels in conformity with the
Convention on Climate Change.
She added that, although Venezuela’s emissions were not significant, the country had
adopted a series of initiatives, including a programme that aimed to promote reforestation
of some 150,000 hectares by planting trees. Another initiative related to rational use of
energy.
ABDALMAHMOOD ABDALHALEEM ( Sudan), speaking on behalf of the African
Group, expressed concern regarding the Council’s decision to hold an open debate on
issues not falling within its mandate. The Charter had made clear that issues related to
social and economic development remained the domain of the Economic and Social Council and
the General Assembly. The Council’s increasing and alarming encroachment on the
mandates of other United Nations bodies, which the Council was trying to justify by
linking all issues to the question of security, was compromising the principles and
purposes of the Charter and undermining the relevant bodies. The situation was much more
alarming as it was taking place at a time when the process of system-wide coherence was
gaining momentum within the United Nations.
He said the African Group cautioned against attempts to shift the agenda of interest of
all Member States to an institution that had vested final decisions to few members of the
Organization. Energy and climate change were development issues, which should be tackled
within the parameters of development and the impediments to its achievement. If concerns
and challenges arising from climate change and energy were more profound than ever before,
particularly in Africa, the fundamental reason was the lack of fulfilment of commitments
and the absence of concrete action, particularly from developed countries, to tackle the
adverse effects related to those issues.
Developed countries should honour their commitments in the economic and related fields, by
providing, especially for Africa -- the most vulnerable continent -- adequate and
predictable resources, environmentally sound technology and access to energy, including
through promoting foreign direct investment in Africa’s energy sector. As binding
multilateral agreements, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the
Kyoto Protocol offered sufficient provisions for actions needed to address risks
associated with climate change on the global level. The solution to such constraints
resided in a broader adherence to those agreements and, most importantly, in the
fulfilment, especially by developed countries, of all commitments in accordance with the
principles enshrined in the Convention, particularly the Rio principle of common but
differentiated responsibilities. He hoped the decision to hold the debate did not
constitute a precedent, as the Council was not the appropriate body to deal with such
themes.
COLLIN BECK ( Solomon Islands) said his country, located in a
disaster-prone region, faced the effects of climate change on a daily basis, and regarded
the phenomenon as not only a development issue, but a security concern. His delegation
believed that all the main organs of the United Nations should seize the opportunity to
address the issue, which threatened the survival of millions of people worldwide, and
particularly those in the small island developing States, which were largely dependent on
fragile ecosystems to generate economic livelihoods for their inhabitants. It was
troubling that, while everyone said that they were aware of the effects of climate change,
nations had been slow to address its impact. The fact that more people died each year from
the effects of climate change than from conflict had not spurred the international
community to action. Neither had the tragic 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, the disastrous
effects of which had not spared the Solomon Islands. Some 5,000 people had been displaced
by that event.
He said that, despite the work United Nations and its Member States usually undertook on
each others behalf, the Organization remained divided on whether to address the global
effects of climate change as a development or a security issue. He said the United Nations
handled climate change like it was a rare comet that came round every five or six years
and was worthy of discussion only at those times. Outside the Commission on Sustainable
Development, which examined the effects of climate change on a regular basis, no organ
dealt with it year round. “If we are, indeed, serious about addressing our
environmental challenges, we must give climate change the attention and commitment [given
to issues like] terrorism,” he said. The entire United Nations system needed to
respond to that call, not just the Economic and Social Council and the General Assembly,
but the Security Council, as well. The issue of climate change needed to be depoliticized,
and all Member States needed to work to close the existing divide and build bridges
towards a common and integrated response to deal with climate change, including by
implementing the Kyoto Protocol and other international arrangements.
STUART BECK (Palau), aligning himself with the statement by Papua New
Guinea, said that small islands like Palau were particularly challenged by rising sea
levels, and he called the Council’s attention to the risks posed by
“warming”, which was not specifically identified in the concept paper. Global
warming threatened to destroy coral reefs. In 1998, the El Niño warming incident had
caused the bleaching and death of nearly one third of Palau’s coral reefs, and
sensitive species had been virtually eliminated. The reefs were central to Palau’s
economy, which relied on tourism, and to its food security. Taken together, the
destruction of Palau’s coral reefs was tantamount to the country’s destruction,
and would inevitably lead to the migration of its people and an end to their culture.
He went on to say that coral reef ecosystems were vital to scores of States, not just
Palau. They provided one quarter of the fish catch in developing countries, and fed over 1
billion people. Their destruction would post a threat to every country to which former
fisherman and their families would migrate. The United Kingdom was applauded for compiling
the influential Stern review on the economics of climate change. The United States and
European Union were to be thanked for their effort to ensure that coral bleaching was
addressed during recent deliberations on the General Assembly’s oceans resolution.
France was applauded for leading the Coral Reef Initiative for the South Pacific, as were
other nations that had addressed the threat to coral reefs. The international community
was called on to squarely address coral reef destruction and the amelioration of damage
already done.
CARSTEN STAUR ( Denmark), aligning himself with the European Union, said
resource shortages were powerful conflict drivers -- the situation in Darfur was one
example. There was also a growing realization that climate change threatened security and
stability, and the Security Council should be commended for taking on the responsibility
of discussing that concept early on. But, the debate should not preclude discussion in a
wide range of forums outside the Council. For its part, Denmark would host the fifteenth
Conference of States Parties to the United Nations Climate Change Convention in 2009, with
the aim of ensuring that agreement was reached on a future accord on climate change.
Without such an agreement, it would be difficult to launch a successor to the Kyoto
Protocol in 2012.
He said climate change must be treated in line with other major global threats, since it
might undermine the carrying capacity of many developing countries, exacerbate tension
over scarce water resources and fertile land, lead to environmental refugees, drive
conflict over strategic trade routes and newly accessible resources, and lead to
territorial losses. There was no silver bullet to fix the complex issue of climate change.
There was both a need to mitigate climate changes, as well as to adapt to it. Developing
countries, especially, needed help to deal with security threats arising from
climate-induced degradation and potential tension over scarce resources. The world must
also meet the challenge of changing from carbon-based economies to “something still
unknown”. Indeed, recent reports from the International Panel on Climate Change
provided a strong basis for action.
HJALMAR W. HANNESSON ( Iceland) said that, from the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change report, it was clear that climate change would hit the poorest the
hardest. The world could expect more extreme weather events, glaciers would melt and the
sea level would rise. There would be severe droughts and floods and desertification would
increase. There was clear evidence of climate change in his own country, as well, where
glaciers were shrinking fast. Prior to taking his post in New York, he had been an
Ambassador in Canada, where he had also witnessed the effects of climate change. One did
not need to spend a long time at the United Nations before it was made abundantly clear
that, for a number of Member States, especially small island developing States, climate
change with rising sea levels was the greatest threat to their security. He agreed that
climate change was a serious security issue.
If climate change was to be effectively slowed and eventually halted, and if its effects,
particularly on developing countries, were to be mitigated, then wide-ranging and
long-term international cooperation was the only course open, he said. However, the
international community was not fully succeeding through its international cooperation,
possibly because climate change was treated principally as an environmental issue. With
open debate in the Council, climate change was finally recognized for what it was: a
significant security issue that required the highest attention of world leaders. The next
20 years were crucial. If the international community acted quickly and effectively to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it would have taken significant steps towards savings
millions from suffering and conflict in the future. The scale of the problem was such that
a solution would need commitment of every Member State. Iceland, as a party to the Kyoto
Protocol, was fully committed to doing its part. The country had recently adopted a new
climate change strategy, with a vision to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions by 50 to 75
per cent by 2050.
Mitigation measures should not hinder development, he continued, for which increased
energy consumption was crucial. Within the lifetime of one generation, Iceland had moved
from being largely dependent on coal and oil to fulfilling 70 per cent of its total energy
needs from renewable resources, and a remarkable 100 per cent of its electricity
production was based on clean and sustainable energy. The country was exploring new
technologies, including the use of hydrogen for transportation. By increasing use of
renewable energy, developing countries would be in a position to use their own resources,
which would provide secure access to energy. In fact, hundreds of experts from developing
countries had graduated from the United Nations geothermal training programme, which had
been established in Iceland three decades ago. There were many possibilities to ensure
sustainable energy supply. Iceland would continue its development cooperation strategy to
focus on sustainable development and sustainable utilization of natural resources.
ALFRED CAPELLE ( Marshall Islands) said that the fate of his country and
many other small island developing States already experiencing the earliest ecological
impacts of climate change, was not an isolated concern, but the first link in a chain of
world events that would weaken the structure of global peace. Indeed, in addition to
consideration by other United Nations and international bodies, the issue of climate
change deserved the ongoing attention of the Security Council and needed to be an item on
the 15-nation body’s regular agenda. He said that population relocations sparked by
sea-level rise was already a reality in his region and, with land in limited supply, the
issue would quickly reach critical mass.
He said low-lying nations like the Marshall Islands were at serious risk of spawning an
entirely new class of displaced persons: “environmental refugees”. Faced with
the foreseeable loss of their islands, the struggle to redefine his country’s
Marshallese identity would compound existing political and social stresses already
prevalent in the Pacific region. He went on to say that two impacts associated with
climate change -- ocean acidification and increased water temperatures -- were already
impacting marine ecosystems. The reduction of food supplies in the face of rising
populations not only threatened nations’ subsistence, but would intensify
international competition for increasingly scarce essential resources. “Such future
rivalries will create an invitation to global conflict,” he said. But the
international community still had the opportunity to move beyond “lip service”
and reduce the threat of climate change. While the Marshall Islands realized the complex
challenges and costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to climate change,
the cost of inaction, or inadequate action, would be far greater.
HILARIO G. DAVIDE ( Philippines), broadly associating his delegation with
the views of the Non-Aligned Movement and Group of 77 and China, said the Philippines was
participating in today’s debate because of the importance it placed on energy,
security and climate change issues. In that context, he highlighted a landmark Supreme
Court decision on the environment that enforced the doctrine of intergenerational
responsibility and intergenerational justice. He hoped today’s debate would generate
the consensus needed for speedy cooperation.
It was undeniable that consumption and production patterns, especially in developed
countries, had led to the current climate situation, he explained. In keeping with the
doctrine of intergenerational justice, States should examine how to mitigate climate
change. Citing promises made at the Second East-Asian Summit to work closely to cut
greenhouse gas emissions, he reminded States that potential measures included promoting
cleaner fossil fuel technologies and developing clean coal technologies. East Asia’s
decision to cooperate in mitigating climate change should be replicated by other large
regional groupings. He also recalled the 2006 Cebu Declaration on Sustainable Development,
in which the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) expressed its concern at the
impact of climate change on ecosystems.
Regional cooperation appeared to be outpacing global cooperation, he said. As such, it was
important to focus on inter-regional cooperation. Further, ASEAN and European Union
ministers had stressed the need for participation in the Montreal process. For its part,
the Philippines had created a Presidential task force on climate change that was tasked
with assessing vulnerable sectors.
Developed countries must take the lead in modifying longer-term trends in anthropogenic
emissions, he added, stressing that they were better equipped to manage risks than
developing countries. Further, cooperative development of technologies to address climate
change would ensure no barriers existed to effective technology transfer. He urged all
countries to comply with their legally binding obligations under the Convention on Climate
Change and take climate change considerations as an integral part of their development
plans.
CLAUDE HELLER ( Mexico) said climate change represented a growing and
serious threat for sustainable development, with direct repercussions on energy supply and
demand. The result would be a geopolitical environment that would be determined by the
availability of alternative sources of energy and by the capacity of access to appropriate
technologies for its use. The anticipated impacts of climate change also put at risk
existing oil and electrical infrastructure. Climate change would alter energy
requirements, as well as production and consumption patterns of diverse goods, resulting
in distortions in the productive sectors. The present challenge demanded redoubled efforts
to diminish the use of carbon in the economies on a worldwide scale. Climate change would
also continue to intensify extreme meteorological phenomena, creating humanitarian
emergencies in many countries. Increases in poverty and inequality, if not reversed, would
cause major social conflicts.
Today’s meeting was a valuable exercise that would contribute to efforts to increase
awareness, he said. While deliberating on the issue, however, clarity was needed on the
role of the various United Nations institutions. Although the nature of the threats was
urgent, conferring the responsibility for adopting preventive measures to the Council that
belonged to the specialized forums would confuse the content and scope of the duties
adopted in diverse legal instruments, while also eroding its efficiency regarding the
maintenance of international peace and security. In the present reform process, members
had agreed on the objective of ensuring coherence of the Organization’s actions.
Consistent with that spirit, it was necessary to strengthen the different organs that
could affect the issue, such as the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council.
PIRAGIBE TARRAGO ( Brazil) acknowledged the United Kingdom’s
initiative, but advocated extreme caution in establishing links between conflicts and the
utilization of natural resources or the evolution of climate on our planet. To determine
whether any particular environmental phenomenon represented a threat to international
peace and security remained a very complex task. Not only should conflicts not be traced
back to a single cause, but the matter was also invariably loaded with many political
connotations, which might impair an objective analysis. There was a more relevant link
between climate change and development, as opposed to security. In the case where the
countries listed in annex I of the Climate Change Convention, which were historically
responsible for the current global warming, did not fulfil their commitments regarding the
reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, scientists had agreed that there was a high
probability that the world climate would be seriously affected, thereby becoming another
factor of social and economic instability in many areas of the world.
His Government supported strengthening the international regime on climate change,
including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto
Protocol, he said. The negotiating process must continue to take place exclusively in the
context of the international regime. The contribution of each country must be proportional
to its contribution to the creation of the problem. The debate on the issue should take
place in a forum with universal representation, such as the General Assembly. The
increasing importance of the matter warranted serious consideration of the possibility of
convening a special session of the Assembly. The debate at the United Nations should not
seek to become a substitute for the negotiations in the context of the Climate Change
Convention and the Kyoto Protocol. It might, nonetheless, add to the political perspective
of the debate and underline issues of utmost importance for developing countries, such as
the recognition of the historical responsibilities and the funding of adaptation measures
in the context of both the “polluter pays” and “common but differentiated
responsibilities” principles.
The strategic nature of issues related to climate change and energy required stronger and
more effective cooperation frameworks that recognized the role of developing countries and
took into account the challenges of global warming, while contributing to economic growth
and social justice. His Government was in favour of encouraging diversification of energy
sources and recognized the strategic importance of renewable energy. It was, indeed,
convinced that biofuels could help to address the challenges of energy supply,
environmental sustainability, employment and income generation in rural areas; and
technological development.
NIRUPAN SEN ( India) said the catastrophic scenarios posited by the Stern
report -- which presented political argument as the outcome of an objective scientific
modelling process regarding climate change and its fallout -- could hardly be discussed in
any meaningful manner. In marked contrast, a more immediate and quantifiable threat was
from possible conflicts arising out of inadequate resources for development and poverty
eradication,, as well as competition for energy.
He said the concerns of developing countries centred squarely on poverty eradication, a
prerequisite for which was the acceleration of growth in developing countries. In turn, by
mitigating the potential for conflict, poverty eradication had positive implications for
global peace and security. To tackle the problems that might lead to conflict, action was
required on resource flow, adaptation and technology. Diversion of official development
assistance (ODA) resources from economic growth and poverty eradication in developing
countries was not the answer. Besides new and additional resources, there was a need to
upscale the realization of resources from the carbon market.
He said the appropriate forum for discussing issues relating to climate change was the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. In so far as international peace
and security was concerned, if developed countries reduced their greenhouse gas emissions
and energy consumption, it would considerably reduce such threats through a reduction in
the need for privileged access to energy markets. Nothing in the greenhouse gas profile of
developing countries even remotely reflected a threat to international peace and security,
yet their taking on greenhouse gas mitigation targets would adversely impact their
development and increase their insecurity.
CHOI YOUNG-JIN (Republic of Korea) said that, as well documented by
recent reports by Sir Nicholas Stern and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, it
was increasingly clear that climate catastrophes caused by global warming would gravely
affect the whole world, if not checked by immediate joint action by the international
community. The phenomena associated with climate change would not only have a devastating
impact on global economies, but also have serious security implications, as the concept
paper poignantly recognized. It had been reasonably predicted that the effects of climate
change would be more severe for unstable States and poorer, vulnerable populations. The
understanding of the security dimensions of climate change should, therefore, bring the
international community together for tackling that global issue urgently and collectively.
Climate change certainly demanded fundamental rethinking in many policy areas within a
limited amount of time.
Revisiting “a classical but still illustrative thesis of the Tragedy of the
Commons”, he said that, if humankind abused or misused its public goods -- in this
case, the planet -- the present generation, as well as future generations, would lose
them. To escape that trap, it was necessary to explore common solutions based on
“enlightened national interests”, instead of being bound by the narrow and
immediate concerns of each country. As the level of the individual living within national
borders “enlightened self-interest”, balancing individual needs with the common
good best served each citizen in the long term. In the same vein, it was time to accept
the same logic at the level of the global village. As the era of globalization ushered a
new set of transnational problems, of which climate change was a prime example,
traditional national interests needed to expand to encompass “enlightened national
interest” -- the interests of each nation in tune with a global perspective. Once
nations adopted such an approach, a corollary “leadership by example” might also
be required.
“We must mobilize our powers of reasoning and abstract thought, which are unique to
humankind,” he said. Those new concepts might best ensure long-term national
interests by enabling the world to better respond to global problems. He hoped that
today’s debate would jump-start the search for wise solutions for the far-reaching
problem of climate change, leading to meaningful progress towards a breakthrough at the
Bali conference in December.
JOHAN LØVALD ( Norway) welcomed the fact that, for the first time, the
Security Council was addressing the security aspects of climate change. Climate change and
energy were broad issues addressed in other United Nations forums, but there was no doubt
that they posed threats to collective security. Climate change was the world’s main
environmental challenge. It affected economic development; threatened the livelihood,
health and resource base of societies; and caused the spread of infectious diseases. It
would likely reduce the world’s food security through droughts and unstable weather
conditions, as well as endanger habitable earth through rising sea levels and result in
more humanitarian emergencies. Climate change as part of the peace and security agenda
should and must be addressed by the Security Council, which would run the risk of becoming
less effective in preventing and resolving conflicts by ignoring the environmental
dimension in the underlying causes of conflict.
To do that, the Council needed to base decisions on facts and specific knowledge, he
continued. It was necessary to fill the current knowledge gap on how climate change and
changing energy needs affected specific conflict situations on the Council’s agenda.
Such improved knowledge would help the international community prevent and deal more
effectively with future conflicts. It could also prove essential for preparing a coherent
response to the risk of climate change among the United Nations membership and across
United Nations organizat
|