重新评估欧盟应对气候相关安全风险的措施（英文）

SUMMARYw This SIPRI Insights paper examines how climate-related security risks (CRSRs) are framed and responded to within different bodies of the European Union (EU). The paper finds that CRSRs are framed differently across the EU and that the kinds of actions proposed vary. Although this is not necessarily a problem, a key challenge is that across the EU the prescriptions for addressing CRSRs largely focus on long-term prevention in the form of climate mitigation, on the one hand, and reactive crisis responses, on the other. As a result, the substantial climate change that is already locked in and its related security risks are currently not being addressed. Similarly, this focus overlooks the varied and often complex ways in which climate change can increase risks. The paper concludes that the EU needs to broaden its understanding of and response to CRSRs if it wants to take—and inspire—more effective action to reduce such risks.A REASSESSMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION’S RESPONSE TO CLIMATE-RELATED SECURITY RISKSelise remling and anniek barnhoorn*No. 2021/2 March 2021SIPRI Insights on Peace and SecurityI. IntroductionInternational organizations in different parts of the world are paying growing attention to the perceived security risks associated with climate change.1 In this policy space, the European Union (EU) has become an important actor, together with several of its member states, initiating debate around climate-related security risks (CRSRs, see box 1) in international policy dialogues. For example, through EU member states addressing CRSRs in the United Nations Security Council.2 Indeed, some researchers suggest that the EU is the institutional cradle of the climate security debate globally.3 However, although a growing body of research has acknowledged the EU’s strong leadership role in the international context, researchers have also pointed out that the EU is underperforming when it comes to translating climate-related security policies into practice.4 This SIPRI Insights on Peace and Security investigates how CRSRs have been framed and responded to by different EU bodies in recent years.5 It 1 Diez, T., von Lucke, F. and Wellmann, Z., The Securitisation of Climate Change: Actors, Processes and Consequences (Routledge: Abingdon, 2016); Dellmuth, L. M. et al., ‘Intergovernmental organizations and climate security: Advancing the research agenda’, WIREs Climate Change, vol. 9, no. 1 (Jan. 2018), p. e496; and Krampe, F. and Mobjörk, M., ‘Responding to climate-related security risks: Reviewing regional organizations in Asia and Africa’, Current Climate Change Reports, vol. 20 (Oct. 2018), pp. 1–8.2 See e.g. Brown, O., Le More, A. and Raasteen, J., ‘Europe and climate security: Is Europe delivering on its rhetoric?’, CSEN Policy Paper, July 2020, Annex 2.3 Zwolski, K. and Kaunert, C., ‘The EU and climate security: A case of successful norm entrepreneurship?’, European Security, vol. 20, no. 1 (Mar. 2011), pp. 21–43; and Torres Camprubí, A., ‘