Author: Gabriela Nagle Alverio

Displacement has been largely missing from the UNFCCC dialogue until fairly recently. In 2015 the UNFCCC Task Force on Displacement was formed out of a collection of experts on displacement who bring a wide variety of perspectives, from humanitarian to development to youth and beyond. Due to their collective expertise and common knowledge, they were able to really hit the ground running. One of their challenges was expanding beyond the Geneva-centric global perspective, so they hosted a 3-day workshop that brought together stakeholders from civil society groups, NGOs, and governments around the world to inform the task force’s direction. Based on that input, the task force created their first work plan with a series of 22 initial recommendations. Through that process, they realized that there were several critical gaps in the literature, which led to the commissioning of analytical briefs and studies on topics such as mapping and slow-onset hazards. The goal, as the task force sees it, is to share the expertise and knowledge that already exists on displacement with the climate change community, rather than reinventing the wheel entirely. Thus far, they have not gotten specific on climate change-induced displacement, which is the direction the second work-plan will take.

A tension point for the task force members is that although climate change is a factor in displacement, there is a great deal of displacement happening as a result of environmental factors that are not directly linked to climate change which also merit the attention of the global community. Should communities who are impacted by a volcano eruption be treated differently than those experiencing sea-level rise? Ultimately, the answer the task force has come to is no, but they are still working to create recommendations for the UNFCCC related to climate change-induced displacement that take an integrated approach. 

The task force still has many questions left to answer. Could displacement measures become part of a country’s NDC? How can climate financing be channeled towards areas with high displacement risk? What policies can governments implement to support equity and dignity as it relates to displacement and migration? Luckily, the task force is not alone in finding answers to these questions. Currently, the Platform on Disaster Displacement is taking the lead on a global project on integrating displacement into NDCs and the conversation around climate change more broadly. There is no doubt that tension will remain as stakeholders outside of the displacement community grapple with the messy outcomes of climate change that intertwine with political, economic, historical, and environmental contexts, but for that reason, the work of the task force is essential to the promotion of equity when displacement occurs.

“Rather than securitizing climate, we need to think about climatizing security.” Alice Hill summed up her view of the role of climate in the national security landscape in the U.S. during the panel discussion titled Climate Change as a Threat Multiplier put on by American Security Project. During her career in the Department of Homeland Security and the White House under the Obama Administration, she has been struck by the lack of integration of climate change into national security decisions and has made it her mission to change that. Organizationally, she believes that our current governmental structure reflects a post WWII approach which allows regional interests to dominate the conversation rather than issue-based ones. Since climate change has not been part of the discussion, there has been little planning into the future of security as it relates to climate impacts in favor of reactionary action. One of the major problems she highlights, as a result, is the limited emergency management infrastructure and capabilities that we have as a nation, which typically lead us to turn to the military for disaster relief. If the status quo continues and as climate change rapidly increases the disasters that we will have to deal with domestically, the U.S. military will have less capability to focus on their main mission of national security threats from outside our borders.

Although seemingly tangential to the topic of climate change negotiations, I found her insights to be relevant in the holistic approach that is necessary from a governance perspective. Firstly, her perspective provides an argument that appeals to different audiences than the ones who are already on board with climate change adaptation and mitigation. In order to move forward with climate change negotiations, we first need people to vote for representatives who are committed to making strong commitments around climate change. As climate change becomes further recognized as a national security issue, an opportunity exists to bridge some of the partisan gap and create pressure for diplomatic action and increased mitigation targets. Secondly, it points out that in order to be able to both influence other countries and commit to agreements that require increased action by the U.S., we must also set up our government to evolve with the impacts we are experiencing and incorporate climate change into our policy decisions. Otherwise, there may likely be a point where we are so far behind in the U.S. that we must forgo our role as an international player to focus solely on reactive emergency management and increasing our military capabilties. It is high time to begin climatizing our security, for the sake of not just our domestic interests but our ability to influence and respond to the international arena.