UNITED NATIONS - / www.MaximsNews.com, UN/ -  17 April 2007 -- The U.N. Security Council today held its first-ever debate on the impact of climate change on security, as some delegates raised doubts over whether the Council was the proper forum to discuss the issue.

The day-long meeting, called by the United Kingdom, aimed to examine the relationship between energy, security and climate, and featured interventions from more than 50 delegations, representing imperilled island nations and industrialized greenhouse gas emitters alike.  While some speakers praised the initiative, there were reservations from developing countries, which saw climate change as a socio-economic development issue to be dealt with by the more widely representative General Assembly.  Many delegations also called for the United Nations to urgently consider convening a global summit on the issue.

The session was chaired by British Foreign Secretary, Margaret Beckett, whose country holds the presidency of the 15-nation Council for April.  She said that recent scientific evidence reinforced, or even exceeded, the worst fears about climate change, as she warned of migration on an unprecedented scale because of flooding, disease and famine.  She also said that drought and crop failure could cause intensified competition for food, water and energy.

She said that climate change was a security issue, but it was not a matter of narrow national security -- it was about “our collective security in a fragile and increasingly interdependent world”.  By holding today’s debate, the Council was not seeking to pre-empt the authority of other bodies, including the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council.  The decisions that they came to, and action taken, in all those bodies required the fullest possible understanding of the issues involved.  “[So] climate change can bring us together, if we have the wisdom to prevent it from driving us apart,” she declared.

Calling for a “long-term global response” to deal with climate change, along with unified efforts involving the Security Council, Member States and other international bodies, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said that projected climate changes could not only have serious environmental, social and economic implications, but implications for peace and security, as well.

“This is especially true in vulnerable regions that face multiple stresses at the same time -- pre-existing conflict, poverty and unequal access to resources, weak institutions, food insecurity and incidence of diseases such as HIV/AIDS,” he said.  The Secretary-General outlined several “alarming, though not alarmist” scenarios, including limited or threatened access to energy increasing the risk of conflict, a scarcity of food and water transforming peaceful competition into violence and floods and droughts sparking massive human migrations, polarizing societies and weakening the ability of countries to resolve conflicts peacefully.

China’s representative was among those who argued that the Council was not the proper forum for a debate on climate change.  “The developing countries believe that the Security Council has neither the professional competence in handling climate change -- nor is it the right decision-making place for extensive participation leading up to widely acceptable proposals,” he said.

The issue could have certain security implications, but, generally speaking, it was, in essence, an issue of sustainable development.  The United Nations 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.   To effectively respond to climate change, he said 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.

The representative of Pakistan, speaking on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China, agreed, saying 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.

But Papua New Guinea’s representative, who spoke on behalf of the Pacific Islands Forum, 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 countries 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-member 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 sensitive issues, such as implications for sovereignty and international legal rights from the loss of land, resources and people.

Singapore’s speaker said that, while it was obvious that there was some discomfort about the venue and nature of today’s debate, it was equally obvious that climate change was “the” global environmental challenge.  Given their paucity of resources, developing countries would be the hardest hit, and some had their survival at stake.  But it was not only the poor that would suffer.  There was broad consensus that it was necessary to act to arrest what “we ourselves are responsible for”.  Many of the problems caused by climate change could only be tackled if nations worked together.

“Let us view our procedural disagreements against this backdrop,” he said.  While it might be difficult to quantify the relationship between climate change and international peace and security, there should be no doubt that climate change was an immediate global challenge, whose effects were transboundary and multifaceted.  He was not advocating that the Security Council play a key role on climate change, but neither could he deny that body “some sort of a role, because it seems obvious to all but the wilfully blind that climate change must, if not now, then eventually have some impact on international peace and security.

Also participating in today’s debate were the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Slovakia, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of Italy, the Federal Minister for Economic Cooperation and Development of Germany (on behalf of the European Union), the Minister for Development and Cooperation of the Netherlands and the Minister for State and Foreign Affairs of the Maldives.

Others taking part in the meeting were the representatives of Belgium, Ghana, Congo, Qatar, United States, France, Indonesia, Panama, South Africa, Russian Federation, Peru, Switzerland, Japan, Namibia, Barbados, Ukraine, Egypt, Australia, New Zealand, Tuvalu, Bangladesh, Venezuela, Sudan (on behalf of the African Group), Solomon Islands, Palau, Denmark, Iceland, Marshall Islands, Philippines, Mexico, Brazil, India, Republic of Korea, Norway, Federated States of Micronesia, Argentina, Cuba (on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement), Liechtenstein, Bolivia, Cape Verde, Costa Rica, Israel, Canada, Mauritius and Comoros.

The meeting began at 10:20 a.m. and suspended at 1:20 p.m.  The Council resumed its debate at 3:15 p.m. and wrapped up at 6:35 p.m.

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.”

SEE PAGE TWO>>

[SEE PAGES: ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE]

Enter your search terms Submit search form           MaximsNews.com  An Independent Voice from the United Nations

~~~~~ MaximsNews.com, An Independent Voice from the U.N., provides commentary and analysis from leading world figures: King Abdullah II (Jordan), HRH Prince Zeid Ra'ad Zeid Al-Hussein (Jordan), Sir Brian Urquhart, Hans Blix, Amb. Richard Holbrooke, Anwar Ibrahim, Bianca Jagger, Dr. Nafis Sadik, Shashi Tharoor, Thoraya Ahmed Obaid, Noeleen Heyzer, Kerry Kennedy, Ian Williams, Stephen Schlesinger, Sen. Timothy E. Wirth, Marc Morial, Amb. Jayantha Dhanapala (Sri Lanka), Amb. Pierre Schori (Sweden), Amb. William H. Luers, Susan Roosevelt Weld, Rory Kennedy, Mehri Madarshahi, J. Michael Adams, Gloria Feldt, Jeffrey Laurenti, Rodney D. Smith, Ashley Bommer, Rory O'Connor, Genevieve Stamper, Max Stamper and others.

REACH THE WORLD'S MOST INFLUENTIAL PEOPLE   FOR BANNER ADS, contact:  ElsieHillman@MaximsNews.com TO SUBMIT YOUR PRESS RELEASES, contact: TomHerkins@MaximsNews.com   Advertisement

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

MaximsNews Network® LLC is a Global News Network reaching over 30,000 in the International Community. It is associated with MediaChannel.org and Globalvision News Network, global news and media information services with more than 350 news affiliates in 135 countries. MaximsNews®LLC is in partnership with the United Nations Foundation and the Better World Fund. Established in 1999. 

The views expressed are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of MaximsNews® LLC.

MaximsNews.com U.N. ® LLC News for the United Nations and the International Community -   www.MaximsNews.com | MaximsNews@MaximsNews.com | Please contact us about Republishing: Syndication@MaximsNews.com ©Copyrights 1999 - 2007, MaximsNews® LLC. All rights reserved.