Welcome back folks!
Back from a couple of weeks in the US, where I had been reflecting on why I’m working on climate as a risk management professional. Beyond being part of being part of a broader, solutions-focused community that is charting new territory, it really came down to doing my part to keep those I care most about, and as many others as possible, alive and thriving amidst our climate emergency. And that led me to reflect on how security, climate change impacts intersect with the major concerns around equity and inclusion in many communities.
Hence…
What is climate justice, and what does that mean in the security context?
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.” - Margaret Mead
When we think about protecting ourselves, our families and communities, we inherently bring in core ethical and value considerations into the what, why, where and how. And when we apply the lens of climate action, we consider:
What is worth protecting? Who is worthy of protection?
Who gets to decide?
What is fair and equitable?
What about the rest?
While this is not a ethics and political philosophy newsletter, and this is not a broader discussion on climate justice (”who should pay for what”) I offer that there are several observations about climate change impacts and security risk management that are worth bearing in mind. Personally, climate justice is a form of climate security - we’re not really safe until we all are.
Climate change impacts don’t respect political borders; they’re transboundary - think the big smoke over the US and Canada, heatwaves across Southeast Asia, the drying Danube.
Disasters become disasters because of human choices and investment - or lack thereof. Every society has haves and have-nots. Wealth, opportunities, influence, access, education are distributed unevenly - and these inequities are often structural. Theses inequities are often drive the have-nots’ vulnerability to changes.
We know those who are most vulnerable to climate realities today are many of the same who have been excluded from economic wealth, and the benefits those bring to livelihoods. Climate change impacts disproportionately impact low-income, people of colour and women.
Despite arguments to the contrary, the choppy waters of global geopolitics and strains of isolationism and nativism in some countries, we continue to live in a globalised society.
When we are effective at keeping people safe, that creates social and economic externalities - whether within organisations or across communities or a country. Two examples: A company with a good security culture will suffer fewer operational and financial losses from theft and fraud, staff are more comfortable to speak up about issues and risks, and leaders are more confident that they’re prepared to anticipate and respond to incidents. In parallel, restoring a stretch of riverine marshland by the Houston Ship Channel can act as a natural water filter, and provide more space for migrating birds and shelter for fish. Designed and maintained properly, it can also absorb some impact of storm surges which in turn reduces the risk of flooding to adjacent low-lying, low-income communities who are more likely to be inadequately insured with poorer access to healthcare.
How do climate justice challenges → security issue?
What are some of the ripple effects of not (suitably) dealing with these issues?
Discontent and resentment brewing into protests, sometimes which can become violent. When people believe they are left out, that existential decisions have been made for them, that they are not listened to or not taken seriously, we can’t be surprised that many don’t take it lying down. Examples abound: dam protests in Argentina, deadly land use disputes in Nepal, NIMBY protests against onshore wind projects in Norway. As climate change impacts shifts water, forest cover, and weather patterns, the geographies and the intensity of the human response are almost certainly to shift - and if models are remotely accurate - then this does not bode well for the frequency of future conflict.
Reputation: The activities of governments, NGOs and companies are already under greater focus. The erosion of trust in institutions of most kinds over the past decade is clear and generally span countries with varying cultures and social / economic / political values. Companies are also fast being seen to take on more prominent roles in social and political dialogue. While this may feel like a new phenomenon, it isn’t: many countries have overseas chambers of commerce as vehicles to influence policy; lobbying groups abound the streets of Washington, London and Brussels; and many countries aggressively champion their big firms at home and abroad e.g. France with Total, Alstom. Going further back, organisations like Standard Oil and British East India Company were at the table in driving government policy, and in the latter’s case behaved like a parastatal. Perhaps one of the differences in today’s landscape is that these roles are being performed much more in the open, more firms are leaning in to express their views, and more explicitly reference a “social licence” to operate in their communities.
With this shift however comes greater scrutiny and accountability from the public - and therefore reputational concerns arising from the ripple effects of a business strategy, a project, an interaction with the public. And this is where projects, such as the Norway example, may “go wrong” even with good public intentions to reduce emissions via wind energy, but unfortunately harm the traditional practices of the local population. Security managers, and their public relations, legal and other frontline colleagues have an important responsibility to work together to anticipate, flag, manage and mitigate the reputational impact of these projects - or else risk undermining the stated desire to make a positive impact and protect communities.
Social advocacy: as we have seen with groups like Extinction Rebellion and Greenpeace, companies and public organisations seen to be not operating in the interest of mitigating the impacts of climate change would be seen as having lost their social licence. Working to reduce the impact of direct action from advocacy groups require - like with dealing with reputational risk - collaborative efforts inside an organisation while engaging with those outside. It’s the responsibility of risk managers to recognise emerging issues, and be part of the process to proactively engage and manage. Also be aware that a “critical mass” is much smaller than we are sometimes led to believe: Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan’s influential study of over 200 violent revolutions and 100 nonviolent campaigns highlighted that while results of success were mixed, successful campaigns only required 3.5% of a population being actively participating to precipitate change.
Life can hit you fast.
OK so how do I secure climate justice?
In my view, not that simple at all. Also, not a lawyer. But there are a few ways to start:
Do your homework: know what your organisation is doing, how that is perceived inside and outside of the organisation. Appreciate and understand that cause and impact (e.g. a well-intentioned project can still anger many people, or is not what they really wanted) is often not simple and non-linear. If people seem to not like what’s going on, learn why, with empathy. Ask questions. Inventory.
Dust off your operations model and incident / crisis management plans. The US NAACP has a helpful best practice guide to improve inclusion and promote more equitable outcomes in disaster management. Bring those likely to be most impacted, and thus have most at stake, into the planning process, so that your protection measures also account for their needs. and Have measures and capabilities in place to reduce chaos in an incident and offer clarity in how to get help. You need not necessarily agree with all of the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion discourse to agree that people tend to get better results, over time, when they have a coterie of different voices at the table informing decisions.
Resilient leadership. There are tons of leadership books and blogs out there, but worth having a listen to this podcast episode from Resilience Rising what leading for resilience in a climate crisis means. Moving quickly, being prepared, a learning mindset, inclusion, taking on feedback, empathy and decisiveness are all part of the mix.
Security governance and risk management aren’t cure-alls, though. There’s roles for everyone to play but security solutions should not be a substitute for stakeholder engagement, diplomacy, community custodianship etc. Improperly designed, mismanaged, or abused, it can (and has) cause significant harm and undo any good to organisations and communities. In the climate lingo, that is one form of “maladaptation,” or in security terms, a clusterfuck. Let’s try to avoid those.
There are loads that can be discussed e.g. disparities in climate funding across countries, communities, demographics, solution type; NIMBYism and the concept of privilege; perceptions of climate change between the global North and South, and so forth. I’ll leave it here for now, but what are your thoughts?
Events, jobs and other stuff that caught my eye
The National Academies of Science in the US is hiring a congressional fellow focused on climate’s nexuses across health, security, infrastructure etc.
The World Food Bank is looking for a climate risk advisor focused on climate and disaster risk financing programmes
Be a White House intern on environmental justice and climate resilience
The deadline for the IDEO Climate Resiliency Challenge - backed by several insurers - is approaching fast, 10 July.
The Africa Climate Summit in Nairobi, which appears to have a healthy dose of climate adaptation discussions, 4-6 Sep.
Last week, the London Climate Action Week had a couple of adaptation-related events such as this one, which further affirmed my belief that while we got a long way to go in bridging the adaptation funding gap, social impact measures must be part of the framework to help unleash the policies and $$$ that would get us there. It was also wonderful to hear from Prof Saleemul Haq, one of the world’s leading experts on climate adaptation, speak candidly about where we are and where we need to go.
Water risk and security in the headlines! CNBC reports on a study on how China and India are two of the particularly vulnerable countries. I recently wrote about water risks here and here.
A cool and handy headline climate change indicators, from the Indicators of Global Climate Change initiative, frequently updated, geared towards policymakers.
A word from the admin
It’s so pleasing to see more people thinking and writing about these issues across academia, government and the corporate sector - including on social media platforms. As someone who spends a fair bit of his downtime preparing and writing content, I’m sure you understand to please credit or cite me if you intend to quote or use some of my work. Or please get in touch in the comments. Otherwise, it’s just not cricket, innit?
___
Next month, I look to tack back toward geopolitics and climate, and revisit some key trends to bear in mind as the El Niño cycle approaches, cost-of-living pressures, populist discontent across Europe and Latin America, and the Ukrainian counteroffensives barrels on.
Until then, take care!