31 May 2024 Preventing hot conflicts: human security in times of climate change

Speech by Development Minister Svenja Schulze at the Willy Brandt School of Public Policy
(University Erfurt)

Standbild aus dem Video der Willy-Brandt-Lecture der Bundesentwicklungsministerin Svenja Schulze
Brandt Lecture 2024 by Federal Minister for Development Svenja Schulze (from minute 6:50)

Check against delivery!

Ladies and gentlemen,
Students,

I will start with a question: Have you ever seen a lemming? Those small rodents, related to mice, who regularly set off in their thousands to find a new place to live?

They’re known for one thing in particular: people say they have a collective death wish and they descend in droves down from the Scandinavian mountains to the sea, where they jump in and drown.

It is a type of self-destructive behaviour that goes against any natural instinct for survival. And yet as Willy Brandt pointed out in 1985 – lemmings are not alone in that behaviour:

humans are doing much the same. With their destructive treatment of nature and the environment, they are releasing forces that will lead to the suicide of the human species.

It is nearly forty years since Brandt issued that warning - it was quoted already in the beginning - and yet it remains as relevant today as ever.

Climate change is threatening life on earth. Temperatures are rising, glaciers melting and whole stretches of land disappeared under the sea. It is robbing people of their means of survival. And it is humans that have caused that change in the climate – although a small number of humans have done much more damage than most.

As with so many issues, Brandt’s ideas were ahead of his time. Certainly, scientists were already predicting many of the trends we are seeing today back in the eighties. But the general public still did not see the destruction of our environment and its negative impacts on our climate as one of the major challenges needing to be tackled.

It would be interesting for me to know what you think. Maybe you can raise your hand?

Whom of you would agree that climate change is one of the biggest challenges facing humankind?

Ok.

And how many of you see climate change as THE biggest challenge of our time?

Well, I would say that’s quite a lot of you: in fact, the vast majority.

As students from the Willy Brandt School of Public Policy and guests with a strong interest in the issue, you are probably fairly progressive thinkers.

And yet I think I can safely say:

there is a consensus in society that climate change needs to be tackled urgently.

And I’m not just talking about Germany’s society, I’m talking worldwide. Elizabeth Wathuti, the Kenyan environmental activist, asked in the run-up to the 2022 climate COP whether people in the industrialised countries have failed to realise how serious the situation is.

And Marina Silva, Brazil’s Environment Minister, is equally clear when she talks about why her country is taking such decisive action to halt deforestation. We cannot accept one degree more than 1.5 degrees, she has said.

That is a plea to other countries to really double down on the goals of the Paris climate agreement. And for them to finally do more to addressing rising temperatures, limiting the increase to 1.5 degrees above the pre-industrial level.

So, my starting point today is this: we as the international community – and as humanity – need an ambitious climate policy. We need it to preserve the natural resources that sustain our lives.

But it is about even more than that. It is also a question of social justice, peace policy, and more international cooperation.

I would like to illustrate that by putting forward three hypotheses.

Firstly: climate policy is about more than coping with the challenge of decarbonization. It is, above all, also a question of social justice. Global social justice.

Because climate change is already threatening basic human rights, like the right to live, health, food and water. And, most importantly, climate change is posing the biggest threat to those who already have least.

The ones who are least responsible for climate change!

And who are least able to protect themselves from its impact. The ones who have no money to relocate when storms, heatwaves and floods threaten their home again and again.

The ones who have no air condition, even though temperatures climb to dangerous levels for several months a year, like in India.

The ones who cannot buy bottled water when their well produces only salt water, like in Jordan. The ones who starve if their crops dry up, like in Ethiopia.

The people of this world whose very lives are under threat from climate change.

Protecting the world’s climate means above all protecting the world’s most vulnerable. Climate change mitigation is a question of global social justice. Rich countries, like Germany, who have contributed most to climate change have promised to act in solidarity.

But climate protection is not only just in itself. It must also be done in a socially just way.

Of course, we need to rapidly switch to sustainable energy systems worldwide if we are to stop climate change. But my point is: that switch has to benefit everyone, we can leave no one behind.

If reforms, like phasing out fossil fuels, mean people lose their jobs and their livelihoods, then they need support and an alternative for their future.

And, equally, we need to make sure that the new opportunities that are created – like new jobs or decentralised energy supply – benefit above all disadvantaged people.

People like Gloria Okoampah from Ghana. Gloria is an engineer. She builds these small-scale solar systems so that people in rural areas, where there is little infrastructure, can light their homes and charge their mobile phones. It is a relatively cheap way of supplying power to regions that often are not connected to the grid. And it is a source of income for people like Gloria, in a country with high unemployment. Gloria can earn some money for herself and her family. And at the same time, she is helping the climate.

Those are the kind of projects we support with German development policy. The aim is to advance what we call a “just transition”. It is one of my ministry’s main focuses.

At the Development Ministry, we rely on partnerships for achieving that transition. We want to support people in our partner countries in their efforts to adapt to climate change and become more resilient. And, at the same time, to introduce reforms and innovations for more climate-neutrality in their own countries.

One example is our Just Energy Transition Partnerships, or JETP for short. Germany and other industrialised countries join together in these partnerships with countries in the Global South. And together they are working on the clean energy transition – moving away from fossil fuels to climate-neutral energy sources. So far, we have partnerships with South Africa, Senegal, Vietnam and Indonesia.

And the aim is to use investments in renewable energies to also drive social change. Take for example South Africa, where the move away from coal is quite a challenge – both in terms of energy policy and also for society. People who have, until now, earned their living in the coal industry need to find an alternative.

The aim of German development cooperation is to support our partner countries in implementing sustainable structural policies. And at the same time creating jobs and expand social protection at the same time. In other words, ensuring that economic change is also socially and ecologically sound.

The aim is to slow down climate change. And to join together in solidarity to deal with its impact. In that way that climate change doesn’t make poverty worse or perpetuate existing inequalities. And we prevent conflicts over already short resources and instead safeguard the world’s vital natural resources for everyone.

The question of resource distribution brings me to my second hypothesis: socially just climate policy is also peace policy.

Because climate change is shrinking our resources. It is making people vulnerable and threatening their livelihoods. It brings great suffering and uncertainty for many people. And it threatens social cohesion and peaceful co-existence for entire societies.

Willy Brandt also underlined that back in the eighties, when he warned that: “an ever-closer connection emerged between the environment and security.”

And we can see very clearly how the two are linked if we look for example at Africa’s Sahel region, on the southern edge of the Sahara. At countries like Mali and Niger.

Here, the routes used by nomadic herders meet with the sorghum fields of the local farmers. For a long time, these groups existed peacefully side by side, each making their own living. In fact, they actually profited from each other.

But that relationship has been thrown off balance. And a major factor in that has been climate change. There is less and less fertile ground for crops, less grazing land for livestock, less clean water. Yet those are resources that both the herders and the farmers desperately need. And so, social tensions arise.

The region is a prime example of how climate change provokes or intensifies distributional conflicts.

Because where poverty, political instability and violent conflicts are rife, people are most vulnerable. And that is fertile ground for other drivers of crises, like terrorism. And here we can see the close link between climate and conflict.

And that is the picture not only in the Sahel but in many other parts of the world.

Climate change is a threat to human security. And that is why climate policy, formulated in a spirit of solidarity, lays the foundation for more peaceful and stable societies.

It does that by protecting people from the increasingly dramatic impact of climate change. By defusing conflicts over resources. And by ensuring that countries like Germany, who bear some of the responsibility for climate change, deliver on their responsibility.

And that brings me to my third and final proposition: for climate policy to be successful, we need more international cooperation. Because global challenges call for global solutions.

We as the international community already have the framework: the Paris climate agreement and the 17 Sustainable Development Goals laid out in the 2030 Agenda. They form the basis on which we can join together to tackle climate change and the other major threats to human security: poverty, inequality and violent conflict.

But the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says in its most recent report, that the international community is not doing nearly enough to achieve the SDGs and the Paris goals.

So where are we falling down?

One major stumbling block is the climate finance gap. The needs are immense – not only to finance the reforms needed for climate change mitigation and adaptation. But also to deal with climate-related loss and damage.

For example, rebuilding the hospitals, the roads and schools that are destroyed by hurricane. Or providing social protection to farmers whose land is unworkable following years of droughts. Or developing early warning systems so that people and their livestock can get to safe ground when a flood is coming.

The countries of the Global South need more funding. Often, they are worst hit by climate change. And yet they have fewer resources. And some of them are already heavily in debt. The paradox is that, historically, they are least responsible for climate change.

Basic human decency dictates that the economically stronger countries should make a substantial contribution to international climate finance.

But as the major emitters of greenhouse gases, it is also their responsibility. And what is more, it actually benefits them, too. I will say more about that later.

Industrialised countries have committed to mobilise an annual 100 billion US dollars for mitigation and adaptation in low-income countries until 2025. And negotiations are underway on a new goal to apply from 2025.

Germany is contributing its share and will continue to do so. But that is not enough.

These funds are channelled, for example, in the Global Shield against Climate Risks and into the new fund to address loss and damage.

The Global Shield was launched jointly by the G7 and the V20 – the “vulnerable 20”, that is a group of 68 countries under particular threat from climate change.

The launch was at the 2022 Climate COP in Sharm El-Sheikh. Since then, the Global Shield has begun work in eight “pathfinder” countries, including Ghana. Social protection systems are being developed there, for example, and linked up with early warning systems.

And at the COP in Dubai in 2023, another breakthrough in international climate diplomacy was achieved and a new fund for dealing with loss and damage was created. Low-income countries had long been demanding for this kind of instrument.

The United Arab Emirates and Germany made a joint commitment in Dubai of 100 million US dollars each. They sent the message that non-traditional donors like the United Arab Emirates were also being called on to support the fund.

And yet, despite these achievements, there are still not enough funds to meet all the needs that are there.

Added to this is the fact that public budgets are stretched. That seems to be limiting various countries’ political and fiscal scope of governments, not just Germany’s.

So we need to find new sources of finance to tackle the world’s major challenges in a spirit of solidarity.

That is why I support Brazil’s proposal for a global billionaire tax. Brazil put forward the proposal under its presidency of the G20.

The idea is that the world’s 3,000 or so billionaires should contribute their fair share to funding the common good.

But what is fair?

To me, it means strong shoulders carrying more than weak ones. But, at the moment, the world’s super-rich are paying far less taxes relative to their wealth than the average of wage-workers.

One reason is that the super-rich do not get their income by earning a wage from doing a job. Instead, they generate income by investing their assets. And investment income is taxed differently – usually at a lower rate – than earned income.

So someone who earns a dividend on their shares often pays less tax than someone who works to earn a wage.

And billionaires are often able to structure their wealth so that, on paper, it generates hardly any taxable income. And they make use of the many tax exemptions available.

That is all legal. But is it fair?

After all, fair also means applying the same rules to everyone, I would say. That is why it is so important to take this issue to a multilateral level and to come up with a global framework. That way, it would be harder for the super-rich to relocate their wealth to places where it is in effect barely taxed.

Brazil’s proposal is for billionaires to pay a levy of at least 2 per cent of their total wealth.

If they have already contributed that amount by paying income tax, then they are exempt. But if they have managed to avoid paying income tax, then they have to pay a billionaire’s tax.

Are 2 per cent fair? I am sure that’s open to debate. But it would make a huge difference.

And since the superrich have a far bigger ecological footprint than average – we’re talking here about comparing an elephant to a mouse – it would be unfair if they didn’t make that contribution.

I would like to ask you: how high do you think economic losses from extreme weather events were last year?

Let’s have a show of hands again.

Who thinks it was less than 100 billion dollars? 100 billion dollars of losses from extreme weather events?

Alright. Who thinks it was more?

A lot think so.

And more than 200 billion? Anyone thinks so?

Some of you do.

I’ll tell you the answer: it was around 250 billion dollars. And that is the amount that, experts estimate, could be raised through a global billionaire tax.

My point is: those are funds that are urgently needed – for the global energy transition, for mitigating climate change and for tackling global inequality. They are funds that can be invested in the future. And that benefits the super-rich, too.

Which brings me back to the benefits I mentioned at the start. When rich countries invest in climate protection in other parts of the world, it also benefits them.

To illustrate that, I’d like to use a concept I am sure that you all know, or will learn about, in your studies of public policy: the concept of “public goods”.

Public goods are a bit like public transport – there are always free-riders. In other words: people who are happy to use public transport but don’t want to pay for it.

And it’s the same with global public goods like a healthy climate. Of course, the world benefits from Brazil or Congo preserving the rainforest. Those rainforests are the lungs of our planet. But what countries are actually prepared to pay for the protection of the rainforest?

I believe the burden should not rest only with Brazil and Congo. A healthy climate is a global public good. And so it requires global solutions.

As the biggest development financier, the World Bank plays an important role in that. It provides countries from the Global South with funds for investments in the future. And it involves the richer countries in financing them.

And as the governor of the World Bank, I joined together with the US Treasury Secretary, Janet Yellen, to campaign for a root-and-branch reform of the World Bank.

We wanted reforms that would increase the Bank’s lending volume and also provide additional incentives to channel more funding into global tasks, like climate and pandemics. In other words: projects that don’t just benefit one country but the whole world.

These reforms are already well underway. The World Bank has included protection of the climate in its vision. The vision is now: “A world free of poverty on a livable planet.” And now it offers incentives for investments in global public goods, like lower interest rates or longer time to repay loans.

And these reforms send a strong message of solidarity.

And solidarity is exactly what we need more of. In international cooperation and for a healthy climate. Willy Brandt said that years ago.

He is mostly known for his Ostpolitik, the normalisation of relations between West Germany and Eastern Europe beginning in the late sixties. And for his extraordinary talent for using diplomacy to resolve political deadlocks and help those involved to find common ground.

His policy of peace and reconciliation gained him the Nobel Peace Prize in 1971. Today, his legacy is more relevant than ever, with Russia’s war of aggression on Ukraine and what seems like ever more crises across the world.

He was also equally committed to respectful South-North relations, based on a spirt of equality. At the invitation of then World Bank President, Robert McNamara, Brandt agreed in 1977 to chair the Independent Commission for International Development Issues, also known as the North-South Commission or Brandt Commission.

The commission published two reports, whose recommendations remain relevant to this day. They called, for example, for the creation of a World Development Fund to tackle poverty, hunger and inequality.

Brandt was utterly opposed to playing off environmental and climate issues against South-North relations. Instead, he described them as two dimensions of a global domestic policy, which feels responsible for protecting the common interests of all people on this planet. Above all an intact environment and a life free of hunger and poverty. Because he believed that was the basis for a stable international peace order. He helped pioneer the concept of global governance.

If you read Brandt’s writings, you will recognise my three hypotheses:

Firstly, that climate policy is a question of global social justice.

Secondly that climate policy is peace policy.

And thirdly that climate policy needs more international cooperation.

And you will see that none of them are new.

Yet they remain highly relevant.

Development policy is playing a major role in translating these hypotheses into practice. And finding solutions to the global challenge of climate change.

Before closing, I would like to return to the lemmings from the beginning. Those small rodents whose behaviour Willy Brandt likened to what humans were doing.

Scientists know now: the lemmings are not, in fact, driven by a collective death-wish. It’s true that they arrive in large groups at the sea. But not to drown themselves. They do it because they have large population booms every four years. And they know that they need to find somewhere else to live.

So they may try to get across the water. Lemmings are good swimmers, many of them do actually make it. So the species has, on the whole, actually developed a very effective strategy for survival.

Why am I telling you all this?

Because I believe we have grounds for hope. Despite the massive challenges posed by climate change. Despite all the damage and destruction that it is already causing.

Because, at the last climate COP in Dubai, we proved that the international community is capable of joining forces to address climate change.

Yes, it will be hard. Yes, it is the biggest challenge facing humankind. The stakes could not be higher. It won’t be easy, but I remain optimistic. I have to be optimistic, we all have to do. I agree with the philosopher Karl Popper when he said: optimism is a duty.

So, thank you for your attention.