PROMISES are meant to be broken. That’s why we should respond to the outcome of COP28 with a healthy dose of scepticism. The headlines will focus on the language agreed regarding the fate of fossil fuels: ‘abate’, ‘phase down’, ‘phase out’. Whatever the agreement, it is unlikely to be fettered with concrete targets or firm deadlines and will rely on fantasies of how quickly we can scale carbon capture technologies. In all scenarios, you can expect the ongoing, unapologetic use of fossil fuels.

But let’s not fully dismiss COP28 yet. In other areas, the summit has been more productive. Foremost among these is the new Declaration on Climate, Relief, Recovery and Peace, which calls for “bolder collective action to build climate resilience … in highly vulnerable countries and communities, particularly those threatened or affected by fragility or conflict”.

Seven out of 10 of the most climate-vulnerable countries are also ranked as fragile states. COP28’s focus on intersections between climate and security is thus a welcome addition. The declaration enshrines a two-fold recognition: one, that climate change exacerbates security challenges; two, that state fragility and conflict impede climate adaptation and mitigation efforts. This is a vicious circle, leaving the most vulnerable further exposed to both violence and climate risk.

These topics have relevance to Pakistan. According to the Pakistan Institute for Conflict and Security Studies, our country witnessed a 34 per cent increase in militant attacks in November as compared to the previous month, bringing the number of attacks this year until Nov 30 to 599. Security concerns are also cited as the reason why Pakistan is expelling undocumented Afghans in a controversial move. Though under-researched, there can be no doubt that cycles of drought and flooding in Pakistan and Afghanistan are exacerbating these trends.

Climate migration will increase demand for illicit activities.

The links between climate change and security challenges are increasingly better understood. Until now, the focus has primarily been on resource competition, the idea that food and water scarcity drives competition between different groups (for example, Kenya’s herders, farmers and conservancy owners) leading to conflict. But other factors are at play too.

In an article titled How Climate Change Helps Violent Non-State Actors, Noah Gordon underscores how climate change undermines state legitimacy by reducing states’ capacity for service delivery and creating more space for non-state actors. Gordon discusses how the spread of inhospitable environments, particularly in agricultural economies, will lead to farmers being desperate and more susceptible to militant recruitment. He also points out how climate migration will increase the demand for illicit activities such as people smuggling, which will provide militant groups with a new funding stream. Most importantly, climate injustice post-disasters will further weaken state legitimacy and spread anger that can be channelled through non-state actors’ narratives.

There is also growing awareness that climate disasters distract security forces from their prime aims as they are increasingly pulled into rescue and reconstruction efforts. This year, from Spain to the US and East Africa, militaries were involved in responses to wildfires and floods, tapping resources and blocking capacity in unpredictable ways. In this context, Nato Secre­t­a­­ry General Jens Stoltenberg said at COP28 that climate change would be at the top of Nato’s agenda and that member states would be more cautious about considering issues such as food and energy sec­urity while supporting the just transition.

Including a climate lens to security policymaking is arguably more easily achievable than ensuring that insecure areas receive adequate access to climate finance and adaptation and mitigation initiatives. A UNEP report released ahead of COP28 found that there is an adaptation finance gap in low-income countries of between $215 billion and $387bn per year, at least 50pc larger than thought. The issue is worse in fragile and conflict-affected areas, due to concerns about funding flows and project viability in these areas.

Given that Pakistan is eyeing Loss and Damage Fund support to build climate resilience, including in many parts of the country that would be categorised as fragile or conflict-hit, we should pay close attention to the plans for better partnering with local governments and community networks, such as schools and NGOs, to deliver climate finance in difficult contexts, groups that are sadly disempowered in our political set-up. Ultimately, vulnerable countries themselves will also have to play a role in tackling the vicious cycle of climate and security by improving democratic norms and prioritising climate-related concerns.

The writer is a political and integrity risk analyst.
X: @humayusuf

Published in Dawn, December 11th, 2023