UN Security Council to consider climate change peacekeeping - Special meeting to discuss 'green helmets' force to intervene in conflicts caused by rising seas levels and shrinking resources
A special meeting of the United Nations security council is due to consider whether to expand its mission to keep the peace in an era of climate change.
Small island states, which could disappear beneath rising seas, are pushing the security council to intervene to combat the threat to their existence.
There has been talk, meanwhile, of a new environmental peacekeeping force – green helmets – which could step into conflicts caused by shrinking resources.
The UN secretary general, Ban Ki-Moon, is expected to address the meeting on Wednesday.
But Germany, which called the meeting, has warned it is premature to expect the council to take the plunge into green peacemaking or even adopt climate change as one of its key areas of concern.
"It is too early to seriously think about council action on climate change. This is clearly not on the agenda," Germany's ambassador to the UN, Peter Wittig, wrote in the Huffington Post.
"A good first step would be to acknowledge the realities of climate change and its inherent implications to international peace and security," he wrote.
Bringing the security council up to speed on climate change could be a challenge, however.
The Pentagon and other military establishments have long recognised climate change as a "threat multiplier" with the potential to escalate existing conflicts,and create new disputes as food, water, and arable land become increasingly scarce.
Wittig seems to agree, noting that UN peacekeepers have long intervened in areas beyond traditional conflicts.
"Repainting blue helmets into green might be a strong signal - but would dealing with the consequences of climate change - say in precarious regions - be really very different from the tasks the blue helmets already perform today?" he wrote.
In an official "Concept Note" ahead of the meeting, Germany said the security council needed to draw up scenarios for dealing with the affects of extreme temperatures and rising seas. How would the UN deal with climate refugees? How would it prevent conflicts in those parts of Africa and Asiawhich could face food shortages?
But there is a deep divide over whether the security council should even consider climate change as a security issue.
China, for example, argues that the security council should leave climate change to the experts.
However,small island states in the Pacific, which face an existential threat due to climate change, have been pushing the council to act for years.
"The security council should join the general assembly in recognising climate change as a threat to international peace and security. It is a threat as great as nuclear proliferation or global terrorism," Marcus Stephen, the president of Nauru, wrote in a piece in the New York Times.
"Second ,a special representative on climate and security should be appointed. Third, we must assess whether the United Nations system is itself capable of responding to a crisis of this magnitude."
That remains an open question.
Wednesday's meeting arrives at a time of growing doubt about whether the UN is equipped to deal with climate change. Last month's climate talks in Bonn produced little progress in key areas.
Meanwhile, Ban has been refocusing his attention from climate change to sustainable development.
The security council has also been stalled in its efforts to deal with the threats posed by climate change.
Its first attempt was at a meeting in 2007 convened by Britain. But the effort swiftly exposed the deep divisions of the common problem.
Small island states, which could disappear entirely beneath rising seas, were anxious for the security council to intervene, saying the threat they faced was as severe as war.
But China and other countries resisted, arguing the security council should stick to maintaining the peace.
Ban Ki-moon ends hands-on involvement in climate change talks - UN secretary general will redirect efforts to making more immediate gains in clean energy and sustainable development
Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations secretary general who made global warming his personal mission, is ending his hands-on involvement with international climate change negotiations, the Guardian has learned.
In a strategic shift, Ban will redirect his efforts from trying to encourage movement in the international climate change negotiations to a broader agenda of promoting clean energy and sustainable development, senior UN officials said.
The officials said the change in focus reflected Ban's realisation, after his deep involvement with the failed Copenhagen summit in 2009, that world leaders are not prepared to come together in a sweeping agreement on global warming – at least not for the next few years.
"It is very evident that there will not be a single grand deal at any point in the near future," said Robert Orr, UN assistant secretary general for strategic planning and a key adviser to Ban.
The view from UN headquarters will likely dismay developing countries who fought hard at Copenhagen and last year's summit at Cancún for countries to renew their commitments to the Kyoto protocol in just that type of grand deal.
UN officials say Ban will no longer be deeply involved in the negotiations leading up to the next big UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, meeting at Durban in December 2011.
"He will continue to encourage leaders to aim for a higher level of ambition but there will need to be less day-to-day stuff," said one UN official. "The negotiations are very important, but it is the big-picture issues that he needs to be more engaged with."
"Because the circumstances have changed, the nature of his engagement is changing," Orr said. "The relative balance of his time is shifting towards getting it done on the ground out there."
UN officials, and those who closely track climate change negotiations, insist that Ban has not lessened his commitment to finding a solution to climate change. Ban has called global warming "the greatest collective challenge we face as a human family".
"His heart is still there, and he does want to make a breakthrough in his tenure, but this might provide a better platform in the near future," said one UN official.
However, they say he now believes there are more immediate gains to be made in mobilising international finance to support a green economy in developing countries than in trying to persuade world leaders to commit to deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.
Others inside the UN system as well as in world capitals have been circling towards a similar conclusion as Ban: that gains in clean energy technology and energy efficiency could do more in the near future to reduce emissions. They could then drive the overarching deal that the UN still sees as necessary.
"The idea that the world will gather together and parcel out emissions cuts among the various nations is probably a non-starter at this point," said Reid Detchon, vice-president for energy and climate at the United Nations Foundation, a Washington thinktank. "Whether it is in 2012 or 2013, the political consensus does not exist for a top-down approach."
In operational terms, Ban's climate change advisory team, which grew to about a dozen people ahead of the Copenhagen climate summit in 2009, has shrunk to less than five people.
Meanwhile, he is in the course of expanding his advisory team on sustainable development to about a dozen people ahead of the Rio meeting.
"The things that are moving faster are the investments in renewable energy, the kind of actual investments and changes on the ground that will make a difference," said Tariq Banuri, director of the division of sustainable development at the UN's department of economic and social affairs. "There should be enough forums to accelerate and support those – some may have to wait for climate negotiations and some may not."
Ban still believes an international agreement on climate change is essential, Orr said. "The sails haven't been trimmed. We are still going in the same direction, but we will have to tack back and forth between the multilateral negotiating process and national realities on the ground."
The strategic shift by the UN secretary general in some ways mirrors thinking in Washington, where environmentalists are looking at how to many progress on climate change without votes in Congress or the regulatory help of the Environment Protection Agency (EPA).
In the case of the UN, however, Ban's decision is not a product of failure. The climate negotiations at Cancún produced modest progress on some of the essential pre-conditions to a global deal, such as climate finance and forest preservation.
The first public indication of a shift in direction was delivered in a speech to the UN general assembly on 14 January, in which Ban ranked sustainable development as the lead item on his agenda for 2011, ahead of climate change, human rights, security and humanitarian aid for Haiti.
But UN officials and others who closely follow climate diplomacy say the UN chief had been considering how best to move forward on climate change at least since the failure of the Copenhagen summit.
Ban has said repeatedly he sees climate change as the challenge of the generation. He staked his reputation as secretary general on gathering world leaders at Copenhagen, arguing that environment ministers and bureaucrats could not hope to command the authority to sign on to agreements that would essentially require the rewiring of their entire economy.
The hands-on approach worked in 2007 when Ban stepped in to prevent a collapse of the Bali summit over George Bush's refusal to agree to emissions cuts.
But the elevated hopes for reaching a final deal at Copenhagen resulted instead in acrimony and a tentative last-minute understanding among the big polluters that was not fully endorsed by the 190 countries in the UN negotiating process.
"The phase the negotiations are going into now is one more of rule-making, rather than heads-of-state engagement," said Jennifer Morgan, who directs the climate and energy programme at the World Resources Institute in Washington. "It is just in a different phase than it was before, and the fact that Cancún was the moderate success that it was allows it to carry on the process in the way that it normally does with ministers and officials."