Summary: EU Presidency Statement - United Nations Security Council: Energy, Security and Climate (17 April 2007: New York)
Statement on behalf of the European Union, by the German Federal Minister for Economic Cooperation and Development, Ms. Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul, "Energy, Security and Climate", in the UN Security Council, New York
Madam President,
I have the honor to speak on behalf of the European Union.
The Candidate Countries Turkey, Croatia* and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,* the Countries of the Stabilisation and Association Process and potential candidates Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia, as well as Ukraine and the Republic of Moldova align themselves with this statement.
Let me start by thanking you Madam President for convening this meeting which has received the high level of interest it rightfully deserves. The security implications of climate change should receive more attention and therefore we welcome this opportunity to convey the perspective of the EU on this subject.
This Council usually deals with more imminent threats to international peace and security than those caused by climate change. However, less obvious and more distant drivers of conflict should not be neglected.
This is true especially against the background of one of our central tasks: the prevention of violent conflict. The Security Council is committed to a culture of prevention as incorporated in resolution 1625. And today we know: there is a clear link between climate change and the need for conflict prevention.
The past decade was the warmest on record forcing glaciers and Arctic ice to retreat. Moreover, the recent findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change provide clear evidence that our globe is already being heavily affected by temperature increases caused by man-made warming. Some of the profound changes in many of the earth's natural systems projected by the Panel will have direct or indirect implications for security.
We can imagine how the scarcity of water, food and fertile land can be a contributing factor to drive conflict. The countries most vulnerable to environmental stress factors are small island states, low lying coastal nations and countries in arid and semi-arid areas - they contribute least to the problem but are most affected by climate change. To give only two examples: Several small island states see their very existence threatened by rising sea-levels. And already in 2020 up to 250 million
people in Africa are projected to suffer from increased lack of water due to climate change. In addition and more generally elsewhere we may anticipate much more frequent and more extreme floods and droughts, with potentially disastrous effects on food production and food security, as well as potentially destructive impacts on livelihoods.
The vulnerability of people, particularly in poor countries, can increase the potential for instability and conflict. Certainly a wide range of interacting factors such as ethnic tensions, trans-border disputes, inequalities in societies, population movements and failed states can contribute to armed conflict. But climate change will become an ever more important factor among root causes for conflict as the climate will continue to change at a faster rate.
What is the conclusion we should draw from these findings?
The cost of action on climate change is far outweighed by the consequences of inaction. We need to consider appropriately the security implications of inaction and mitigate these risks. We are in need of a global framework of risk management to address the challenge of climate change. This framework needs to be based on two pillars: mitigation and adaptation.
Concerning the mitigation pillar, we have to keep the changes in the world's climate within manageable limits. Hence, we need to formulate a forward-looking climate and energy policy. The world is expecting new and determined measures from governments and the UN which will shape the future of humanity on our planet. The EU is prepared to play its part in efforts to address these challenges at global level and is calling upon others to do the same. This is above all a political imperative, but
it also makes sense economically. That is why the EU decided in March this year to put itself on fast track to a low-carbon economy.
The EU has decided to take the lead and to unilaterally reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by the year 2020 compared to the level of 1990, regardless of progress made in international negotiations for a post-2012 agreement. Yet since the EU is responsible for only 15% of world-wide greenhouse gas emissions, the effects of our reductions will only be limited. It is thus necessary to come to a global and comprehensive agreement on how to combat climate change beyond 2012. We offer a
binding 30% target compared to 1990 provided other developed countries take similar steps and economically more advanced developing countries adequately contribute according to their responsibilities and respective capabilities. In addition, the EU adopted a binding target for the increased use of renewable energies and aims to achieve significant increases in energy savings. We hope that these goals will inspire the leaders of both the G-8 and economically more advanced developing countries.
We also hope that the goals help pave the way for ambitious international climate negotiations.
Concerning the adaptation pillar, we need to consider the consequences of unavoidable climate changes. To this end, we think that the security dimension should be duly reflected in future research and reports on the effects of climate change.
We are convinced that an overall framework of preventive diplomacy is needed in order to alleviate the worst consequences outlined in the recent IPCC report. As other challenges to humankind like hunger, disease, poverty, water scarcity or migration, climate change should be addressed in a holistic and preventive manner.
If we realize the interdependency of these factors it will be easier to come up with coherent and holistic approaches. And it might be easier to increase the adaptive capacities especially in those countries most vulnerable to these challenges.
No country can tackle problems of this dimension alone. Environmental, economic and energy policy decisions in one part of the world directly or indirectly affect people in other parts and could be a root cause for conflict there. Sound environmental policies therefore become an essential part of conflict prevention on a global scale.
We have to develop concrete strategies for coherent, integrated and holistic responses of the UN family and UN institutions to address this challenge. Many UN-institutions and organs can and should make a contribution in facing this challenge. They should work hand in hand in a co-operative manner. No institution can claim an exclusive competence for this cross-cutting issue.
In conclusion we think the complexity of the subject and the institutional aspects of where to deal with the various effects of climate change, should not deter us from our task: To ensure that current and future generations can live in a safer and more prosperous world. And I am sure today's debate will deliver a valuable and powerful message contributing to the upcoming climate negotiations for a post-2012 framework in Bali in December.
* Croatia and the Former Republic of Macedonia continue to be part of the stabilisation and Association Process
| Top |
European Union Member States
Alerts by email
Email this page
Print this page