In November 2015, experts from a variety of fields gathered at the Peace Palace in The Hague for the Planetary Security Conference, one of the first large-scale conferences on environmental security and what is hoped to be the start of an annual series. The conference report gives a sense of the diverse discussions held in the Netherlands.

From water to the Arctic, the topics discussed at the two-day conference hosted by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs were chosen by just over 300 participants during a year-long collaborative planning process. Participants were divided into 12 working groups that fell into regional, thematic, and strategic categories. Each came up with tailored analyses of challenges and actionable recommendations depending on their focus.

A common theme emerged from many working groups: the need for a comprehensive, multi-sectoral approach to building resilience to security risks associated with climate change. This explicitly builds on the recommendations about “compound climate-fragility risks” made in the New Climate for Peace report produced by the Wilson Center and a consortium of think tanks and research organizations for the G7 last year.

“The existence of uncertainties about the complex interplay of climate change impacts is not necessarily the primary problem for creating actionable policy,” writes the risk management group in the report. “It needs to be accepted that we should strive for ‘good enough’ interventions as we cannot wait to perfect data or the perfect interventions.”

Surveying the Field

Experts in the regional working groups, including our own Roger-Mark De Souza, assessed Syria and the Euphrates Basin, small-island developing states, the Sahel, the Arabian Peninsula, and the Arctic.

The Arabian Peninsula, for example, is reaching “tipping points” thanks to unsustainable resource depletion, demographic pressures, and declining oil revenues, the working group writes. Current water withdrawals and government subsidies are unsustainable and require reassessment. A combination of economic diversification and improvements to energy infrastructure are recommended. Regional economic structures, such as the Gulf Cooperation Council, could be a way to prepare for economic transition by creating energy standards and coordinating climate planning.

In the Sahel, the working group identified environmental issues as “low hanging fruit” that development organizations and governments can use to build trust and eventually address conflict issues. But there is a dearth of tools and data available for diplomats and policymakers that could inform these efforts, especially at the sub-national scale.

The thematic groups featured discussions surrounding water-related challenges, food security, and displacement and migration. They recommended that private and public funders focus on aid transparency and that humanitarian and development agencies find more ways to reduce long-term levels of vulnerability.

The food security group identified poor land use, population increases, and property rights challenges as major causes of human insecurity. “Shifting global development needs and patterns increase the pressure on large-scale exploitation of natural resources, which often competes with the needs of local communities,” writes the working group’s rapporteur, Shirleen Chin of the Institute for Environmental Security, an international think tank based in The Hague. “By balancing the rights of the individual and the responsibilities towards the community, one will also be strengthening justice.”

The food group also recommended that the global community focus on planned urbanization with “deliberate forethought and anticipation.” This would allow more efficient consumption of food, water, and energy and more equitable growth by concentrating people more efficiently.

The far future working group stressed the need for imagination in innovation and new research, and international disaster scenario exercises to ensure resilience to climate change and the development of adaptive strategies and technologies. These scenarios will require inter-agency and international collaboration to be effective, writes rapporteur Swathi Veeravalli of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

The risk assessment and management group recommended that efforts to reduce conflict vulnerability in fragile states start from the bottom up, taking into account local contexts and needs while being wary of not alienating certain groups. This approach, writes Wybe Douma of the T.M.C. Asser Institute, a Dutch legal research and education organization, is meant to ensure that practices are “workable given the situation on the ground” while remaining “linked to and supported by national and global actions.” Doing so could lead to a “triple bottom line,” where interventions improve resilience to conflict, reduce poverty, and address climate change.

The group also highlighted the importance of connecting policymakers and scientists by “training or assisting researchers in presenting findings in a manner that is understandable and useable for policymakers.”

—

The Planetary Security Conference was planned as the first of an annual series, though its status for 2016 is unclear. “The work begins now,” said Conference Chairman and Political Director of the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs Wim Geerts. He stressed the importance of utilizing the networks and momentum developed at the conference to form an understanding around the nexus between climate change and security, and create actionable policy recommendations. According to the report, participants identified water diplomacy, food price volatility, and food security as potential topics for future conferences.

“The timing is right, and what is important is where we go next,” said De Souza in an interview with the conference organizers.