 Good afternoon and a warm welcome to this Mr Geopolitics webinar on how climate security risks shape international cooperation. My name is Björn Ola Linnéir and I'm the program director for the Mr Geopolitics research program. It's my pleasure to give a short introduction to the seminar. We have next slide please. For the first panel, I'm very glad to introduce our qualified, okay I'll hear my an echo with my do I hear the recording sorry I could just ask the organizers because I hear myself with a 20 seconds delay sorry about that well okay so for the first I would like to introduce our qualified panel who have made an important and novel contribution to our understanding of the linkages between climate security and its consequences for international cooperation. We have Dr Nina von Uckstuhl, she's a senior lecturer in international relations at Stockholm University. She has several prominent publications on the impacts of climate change, natural hazards and climate policies on armed conflicts and human security. Dr Lisa Delmot is an associate professor of international relations also at Stockholm University. She has made significant research contribution on among others economic inequality, legitimacy, and global climate governance. And finally we have Maria Jernes, she's a PhD candidate at Environment to Change at Linköping University and one of the participants at in the Mr Geopolitics research school. In December she will defend her dissertation with a very topical title for today's seminar governing climate change under the Paris regime, political implications of meeting urgency with volunteerism. The seminar will be moderated by Dr Robert Egnel, who is vice chancellor of the Swedish Defence University, but she also is the professor of leadership within the Mr Geopolitics research program. We are very lucky to have Dr Egnel on our board and we are very glad that you could join us for this important seminar. Next slide please. We have some house rules. And post your questions using the Q&A function on the right hand side, the chat box with the question mark that way our moderators, which you see on the picture, will help us to get the questions. We will also record this meeting and the recording will be available on the Mr Geopolitics website, which address you can find there or you can Google it after the seminar. Next slide please. So before we start, just a few words on the Mr Geopolitics research program, which examines the dynamics between sustainable development and changing geopolitics to explore new risks but also new opportunities that arise. Next slide please. We focus on the interaction between peace and security, oh sorry, next slide please. Go directly there. We focus on the interaction between peace and security, human security, global environment change and global governance. We do this by focusing on three transformative processes. The transformative potential in the 2030 agenda, the rapid global environment to change and the new and emerging technologies that also shape the geopolitical landscape but also the prospects for sustainable development. We focus on four research themes, geopolitics of decobanization, geopolitics of food security, the geopolitics of sustainable oceans and four second capabilities and new emerging technologies and the latter point is particularly important. Our tagline for the program is enhanced foresight capacity. We hope that today's seminar will help to contribute with that. With that I would like to leave the word over to Professor Ignell and again, warm welcome. Thank you Bjorn Ola and what an honour it is to play a small part in the Mr Geopolitics program on the board and what a delight it is to be able to take part in this really important conversation where we'll have some cutting-edge research from all of you scholars who have provided the data that underlies this conversation. I'd say this has been on the agenda for quite a number of years now, the relationship or the potential relationship between conflict and climate change but it has been little more than speculation or hypothesization in all kinds of different directions with very limited research underlying this debate and this Mr Geopolitics program and these specific research projects that we are to hear about today is therefore of absolute greatest importance to influence and inform this debate that we are facing. Let me also put this a little bit in context because I think many of us followed Biden's leadership climate summit last week and apart from presenting a rather well developed and specific US agenda in relation to climate change to which we can say welcome back the United States to a debate in which many other countries have been part for many years obviously but President Biden's director of national intelligence at Will Haynes also said to the world leaders that climate change is no longer a peripheral issue but at the very center of US foreign policy. The question then is what does that mean when it comes from the director of national intelligence? How will that influence US foreign policy and what types of consequences are we likely to see? That is for the future to show but whatever the consequences what we do know is cutting edge research that informs this debate so I'm so delighted to be able to introduce these different research projects that we will hear more about in the in the coming hour and first of all it's Nina von Höcksgül you're very welcome and please start. Thank you so much Robert for the kind introduction to Bjorn Ola as well so my research in the past 10 years actually has focused on getting this knowledge together and really identifying where and under what circumstances does climate change matter for armed conflict and this research field as such is still really a young research field and getting to these answers that policy needs right now so how much does it matter where does it matter is really not not simple and the first paper I would like to briefly present if we move to the next slide is a process that has been going on to the next slide you should see yes you should see the in the output of a paper that published published in 2019 of a process that was led and guided by Catherine Muck that I was part of bringing together experts from different fields with different views on the topic and really kind of asking you as experts what are what is the kind of the general assessment about the importance of climate change for conflict right now but also in the future and what you see here is the ranking provided by these 11 researchers in the field about what is most important for a conflict right now and and what you see is that climate variability and change is not is not really coming up or coming coming up on this list rather kind of further down so it's really what we can conclude and that this is also substantiated by by many studies is not that climate that societies deal with floods and droughts and storms and other manifestations of climate change necessarily in the in the violent way but mostly it's a kind of a piece for response to these issues that said research and has started identifying structural risk factors that make areas indeed being at risk of seeing climate leading into or perpetuating conflict making conflict more severe and if we move to the next slide this allows us to identify reasons at risk and one of the attempts to do so and communicate that was an effort from 2018 a paper with Joshua Balsby where we kind of try to map out some of these risk factors and some of them where I think we know enough to say these are really regions or these are really factors that that matter are ongoing conflict are that the population is dependent on agriculture of agriculture income that is in turn sensitive to the climate and discriminatory political institution and if we map on this on the on the world map that these are some of the countries address that you see here in yellow and red and we can use that and together with climate data with data on water insecurity to identify potential reasons at regions at risk that should be monitored and where interventions potentially should be focused if we move on to the next slide I started off by saying climate change is not very important in current societies going back to the expert assessment when when we consider the future and the consider the future of the potential to degrees of four degrees warming this is disastrous climate change that we haven't really experienced so while we have just concluded the warmest decade on records this disasters climate change is is something that that will just amplify a lot of the the magnitude of all the impacts so when we again move to a systematic assessment of what this may mean for conflict you see here that overall assessment is the yellow and red dots across expert is that risk may also increase although uncertainty also increases as well so how much how much does this increase if we move on to the next slide this is a very difficult question if we if we get to or if we consider the climate change and climate change impact literature as such climate science have been much better at providing projections and trajectories of future developments than compared to to social scientists and conflict scientists in particular what we do know though is that conflict is is right now a risk factor or making societies particularly vulnerable and is also a risk factor that that will have implications for how societies are able to deal with climate change and where potential risk may lay in the future so what you see here is a slide of a study by hova by a study or study by hova tege and christina petrova among others who based at oslo university who looked into conflict and what conflict means for a future economic development and looking into projections of economic development that are widely used in climate change impact assessments and what they do find is once we take into account conflict and regions that are conflict with conflict risk today but also maybe at risk in the future this really depresses the the future future growth and the projections that a lot of the research is relying on right now are too optimistic so in the slide you see east africa this is an example where across different scenarios of population growth and education for example we will see depressed growth once we take into account that some of these conflict countries are in are in conflict so this points turn we move to the next slide this points to the importance to also consider conflict interlinkages with other factors and this is something that also some research from from mr. geology of politics in the past years has been looking into what you see here is a matrix of the sdg the sustainable development goals one of them sdg 16 being on on just and peaceful societies and what this really shows that conflict or the lack of conflict goes together with a number of important outcomes a number of sdgs and overall the sdg agenda is characterized by synergy so if we address conflict this is fully compatible but we'll also likely have a lot of other add-on factors uh add on impact on uh on other factors so we really need to consider conflict interlinked also with other outcomes and i'm really happy that in mr. geopolitics we know both strategy carbonization but also food security and other factors to look more into these interlinkages so to conclude i moved to the last slide we do in current societies not to see that climate change is a huge important driver of armed conflict we do see it seems to constitute an additional risk add-on risk in areas that are in conflict have seen recent conflict that are dependent on agricultural production as a sector that are characterized by discriminatory institutions but as we move on to potential scenarios of two degrees warming four degrees warming these risks may quite likely amplify and lastly the important the conflict is also a major driver of vulnerability and connected in multiple ways with sdgs and with other sustainable development goals pointing to the importance to further study the interconnected issues in in this field and also feedback loops from conflict to other factors and back to conflict thanks a lot for your attention thank you for an excellent presentation Nina and and that really provides food for thought in terms of not drawing simplistic conclusions about the linkages here we are so instead we have to view conflict or climate change as one factor amongst many others that interplay in societal changes that might have different sort of political consequences next i would like to move on to lisa delmut who will present her research you're most welcome thank you so much robert and thanks nina for a great presentation i will take up some of the issues that you talked about for example about the issue linkages um my research over the past 10 years basically is focused on global governance and then mr. geopolitics um i have over the past five years also engaged with the issue of climate security and i can say this is a really exciting lively area of research but also a moving target which does make things easier um next slide please uh so what we in terms of that it's a moving target i think in the past decades we can say local and national governments have realised that they cannot adequately address climate risks on their own um and this insight is now widespread and it has helped bring increasing attention to adaptation and mitigation and international climate negotiations um i think when we speak about climate change governance in terms of adaptation and mitigation broadly of which climate security is one aspect we can say that those issues have historically been dealt with uh in global governance in conjunction by international governmental organisations that have mandates in climate change but also uh in development such as the UNFCCC or the UNDP and climate as a risk for human security and national security has in the past 15 years or so increasingly been addressed by intergovernmental organisations with core mandates in other areas and areas other than development and environmental affairs uh relatedly this figure you see here shows the yearly number of adaptation related activities of 30 major uh intergovernmental organisations including the UNDP, UNFCCC, Security Council but also a number of regional organisations such as the Pacific Island Forum, the African Union or the European Union uh which um uh Yadr Fidekaral has in her PhD dissertation coded on the basis of official documents mainly international organisation annual reports. Next slide. In this broader climate governance landscape um we can see an emerging global climate security regime um although the relevance of these intergovernmental organisations for resolving climate security challenges um on although this relevance is increasingly being acknowledged in policy making communities across local uh subnational national and global levels research and climate security governance is still not widely perceived as a research field on its own right um to give an overview of the of the state of the art the knowledge the scientific knowledge we have in climate security governance we have in a recent study categorised existing studies in terms of their main conceptual and empirical foci um and we have published this study in 2018 and the wise climate change it's called IGOs and climate security um and we observe three such foci um the IGOs intergovernmental organisations policy areas and um specific security notions or understandings and one of the main finding and insight of this study was that research on climate security and thereby also knowledge is siloed in these three different areas so to give you a brief example there's a lively debate about climate security in the EU that underlines the use norm entrepreneurship on the issue that focuses on how the EU links climate security to to other issue areas such as health or energy um but these studies rarely communicate with other literatures for example international relations research on the UN although there is increasingly integrated governance and climate security this is also one of the main findings that comes out of the the phase mr geopolitics phase one research is that um there is a lot of integrated governance nowadays and there's increasing insight that we need more integrated governance integrating climate security into in different issue areas um a case in point um is the environment and security initiative and the second initiative that you might be familiar with this is a partnership including traditional security organisations such as NATO but also organisations focusing on human security such as UNDP or UN environment um and it seeks to address conflict risks caused by environmental change in different crisis regions with varying foci next slide please um so um what we have been interested in is to dig a bit deeper into how this international organisation engagement with climate security um looks like um and um what we have done is to do an encompassing document and interview study including interviews among um climate scientists and social scientists working on climate change and IGOs but also um interviews with policy makers and what we what we have found um is basically uh as you can see here in this figure um is that there is um that the material um it gives information about different categories of engagement ranging from rhetorical uh devices like declarations and statements to more operational aspects um like funding or institution buildings or specific projects projects and programs um and as you can also see is that if you compare these two time periods uh the rhetorical um engagement with climate security clearly abounds and has become more emphasised over time um whereas the operational work has uh in relation to the other categories not increased but rather decreased next slide please um same uh then um let me see if I can see you here yes now uh then we were also interested in um in digging deeper into um how the IGOs conceive of climate security risks and I think that Maria will later on um tell you more about this issue um but what we asked um our experts is to rate these IGOs in terms of their understanding of human versus national security um uh understandings of climate security risks on a scale from 0 to 10 where 0 was human security understanding and 10 was um national security understanding and you can see here that the boxes are the are 50 percent around the medium uh on on on median value on the scale uh and these tails are 25 percent of the data distribution on the right and the left hand side respectively so what this shows you is that interestingly human security understandings um in global governance not only in the UN system but also outside and also in classic security organizations uh like OSSA or the UN Security Council the human security understanding uh is most emphasised next slide please um we have then also focused started to focus in our group on uh the framing of the problem of climate security risks and we have done so by looking at uh social media especially Twitter uh data that is frequently used by policymakers as you know um and the multilateral multilaterals also use Twitter for communication so we have studied eight UN agencies uh among others Security Council and FAU and have um looked at their communication about climate security issues in different issue areas and what you see here um is an interesting word cloud of the data overall that shows you which words are used most prominently but we have also looked at different issue areas for example climate induced displacement, climate related health and food security uh and how um uh how climate security um problems or challenges are framed within these areas and using inductive methods we found that three type of framings are predominant emergency framings, emotional framings and technical technical framings among these UN agencies perhaps unsurprisingly uh technical framings abound and interestingly they're also more likely to spur diffusion of framings or problem understandings among the UN agencies um however emotional frames are more common in some issue areas such as food security an issue that will dig deeper uh in Mr. geopolitics phase two which i'm very happy about um and but but also interestingly is that emotional frames among the UN agencies do not necessarily promote the diffusion of specific frames uh or problem definitions but it's rather the technical framings that stand out in this regard next slide please in some what our research uh in phase one on this topic has shown is that a growing number of multilateral institutions across policy domains also in non-climate and non-development areas has governed climate risks since about 2007 discursive actions are most common and a human security understanding of climate risks that dominates and global governance this variation in governance indicates a certain degree of fragmentation i talked about the silos and knowledge that we still have to tackle and overcome and there are multiple drivers of this fragmentation that are varying between different contexts so in phase two we will hopefully gain a better understanding of how to overcome existing fragmentation and promote more integrated governance for better problem solving but there are of course no simple or blueprint measures to reduce conflict oriented fragmentation or fragmentation with unintended consequences so what kind of future we look at remains a matter of discussion thank you thank you very much Lisa and i guess it's rather promising to hear that international organizations are certainly on top of this issue but then again working with it in very different ways and and perhaps then talking more and more and publishing more and more reports rather than and dealing with with the effects of it on on on this framing issue i would like to introduce our final speaker maria janes who is presenting a report she is publishing together with bianola so you're most welcome maria thank you robert um yes so this is a study that bianola again i are working on um which is about perceptions of climate security risks among participants at un climate conferences the cops and so here i'm gonna highlight some of the findings from this study can i have next slide please so we start this study from this increased linking of climate change two different aspects of security that we have heard the previous speakers mention and also the debate about opportunities and drawbacks of such climate securitization as it's usually called in in literature so in this study we have surveyed three un climate conferences from 2017 to 2019 with a total of about 2700 respondents that represent states businesses and civil society and we asked if and how respondents perceive of climate change in terms of security risks and we were also interested in cross country and cross actor group patterns among respondents so we compared survey responses to different indices including countries income levels human development index whether the country has experienced territorial conflict the last 10 years and and the gain which is an index that assesses countries readiness and vulnerability to climate risks can have the next slide please so overall respondents to a high degree perceive of climate change in terms of security risk both to peace and security internationally human security globally and to peace and security and human security in their own country of residence and in the table here we also see that respondents perceive of climate change in terms of different aspects of security including displacement resources such as food water and energy and stability and violent conflict and we see that all aspects are ranked very high in there both in their median and the mean but we also see that trade ranks slightly lower than the other security aspects so in the following I'll present some more of the results and these are the statistically significant differences that we have found among the groups that we compared next slide please so regarding climate change as a risk to international peace and security we see that respondents from richer and less vulnerable countries to a high degree suggest that climate change could present such a risk to international stability so there's some more heterogeneity among respondents from poorer more vulnerable countries with a wider spread of responses and as we will see the results are reversed when it comes to climate change as a risk to security in one's own country of residence so what we can see from this is that some respondents seem to perceive of climate change as a risk to international stability and perhaps resource competition while others seem more concerned about local effects next slide please so this picture shows cross-national patterns of climate change as a risk to peace and security in one's own country of residence and here we see a larger spread of responses but here respondents from richer and less vulnerable countries clearly perceive of climate change as a lower risk to peace and security in their own countries than respondents from the other groups but they do still perceive of it as a risk with a median of between four and five next slide please so last we see the same patterns in respondents perceptions of climate change as risk to human security in their countries of residence and respondents from poorer more vulnerable countries seem to perceive of climate change as a risk to human security in their own countries but there is also a slightly larger spread of responses among respondents from richer and less vulnerable countries we also see a high a higher median for state actors than business and civil society actors and there's also quite a large spread of responses from business and civil society actors so the next slide please so the conclusions that we draw from this is that overall we see that COP participants or UN climate conference participants to a high degree perceive of climate change in terms of security risks and we see that respondents from richer less vulnerable countries expressed stronger concern for international peace and security while respondents from poorer more vulnerable countries are strongly concerned about peace and security and human security in their own countries so why does this matter well we argue here in this study that it's important to continue following this theme of climate politics as the ways in which climate change is framed for example in terms of security legitimizes different types of actions and responses to climate change so we also ask here as a some final questions what is the transformative potential of secure types framings of climate change will framing climate change in terms of security catalyze this necessary transformative action transparency and trust building among actors or will it contribute to resource competition focusing on preserving national security and perhaps paralyze multilateral cooperation so with that I give the word back to you Robert thank you thank you so much for a really interesting presentation and and clearly clearly we are not perceiving this problem in as a mutual problem with the same framework and and that is a poor beginning for the start of dealing with issues that concludes our presentation part of this seminar and we now move on to more of a panel discussion and I would really encourage all of you at home to also post your questions in the chat function I'll keep an eye on that and and while I also have a few questions of my own so I'll let me start out by saying that there's always a risk when we speak both of international security and climate change that it becomes a very abstract and sort of numbers game kind of approach so I was wondering if you can sort of walk us through the processes how does this affect people what does this mean for individuals because clearly climate change isn't attacking our borders or challenging the integrity of our states so why does this matter how are people affected on the ground Nina would you like to take a first stab at this sure thanks a lot Robert this is of course a very relevant question so I mean for one what we see is like how how conflict emerges out of this these are there are different I mean there are different different ways for how how climate and climate related extremes matter for example we have I was speaking about the agricultural sector we have regions like northern Nigeria with the Boko Haram insurgency where where people affected by by additional drought in the in the situation of conflict where we see this is a huge problem for human security but we're also there are reports where displacement together or resulting from this double exposure to to climate risk and to to conflict leads to this place and people moving moving to other areas where there's conflict emerging in these in these host areas so it's kind of if we look into this into the into the inter linkages and look at that on the ground it's it continues to be a kind of quite complex or we see these interactions playing out in in different ways in complex ways but we do see this both kind of risk in terms of livelihood but in terms of food security but then also in in this in this conflict region potential for for for feedbacks and for feeding into conflict in other areas so maybe this was a more developed this was a more kind of a how does it play out on the ground but maybe maybe we could should also speak about what how it matters for Sweden and other populations absolutely and I think a question in relation to that is sort of the fact that you've spoken about different kinds of security there's the international security and that seems to be the worry for us in in the the richer part of the world but there's also the human security dimension at the individual or group level that is more of a concern than in in in the developing world and and this is quite interesting to me and it seems to overlap with with quite a lot of issue areas where most problems seems to be a problem for others in in in in this sort of giving part of the world in in in international aid terms while we always assume that it's an issue of of that's that's the recipients should address at home for them and and and this is again I think a potential source of challenges within international organizations if certain members of the organization see this as a something they have to solve for others while others are supposed to take it at heart and deal with themselves but I was wondering if we could dig deeper into this security concept and what that actually means whose whose security are we talking about it because Avril Haines director of national intelligence it seems maybe she's talking about US national security here and I read a pentagon report quite a number of years ago also highlighting this as a national security issue but but who's is this about national security or is it individual security where should we place our focus I heard that international organization seems to talk a little bit more about human security than international security maybe that's a good thing Maria and Bionola would you like to to start perhaps and yeah precisely I think that that's precisely sort of the point of conversation now when we hear more and more talk about climate security and not the least after the leadership summit on climate change which Biden invited to last week so and of course how we frame the security concept it's we see large differences there and I think that's important as you point out to keep in mind when Avril Haines and others talk about the the perceived threat to the US naval bases and so on that is picked up by a momentary saying that oh this shows how important climate change is and we need to put that on the agenda then perhaps it's a way to persuade also some republicans and so on in in the senate and and some democrats as well but of course that that is a huge difference if that is framed if climate security is framed in that way or if we go to the refugees from from Tuvalu or other low-lying low-lying island states where it's more of an ontological security where it's an existential threat that is the term that Biden uses but then how it's operationalized what we what measures are invoked I think that's a huge difference there so it's not unproblematic to to securitize climate change even though it's perfectly understandable because definitely it's a crisis. Lisa would you also like to add something on this in terms of the organizational responses for example? Sure I'd be happy to I think the framing and understandings of climate security are a really important topic when we look at the literature and what we know about the concept and how it's being addressed and with what effects I think state security and national security is clearly the primary focus of studies on well security of course but also diplomacy peace and conflict whereas human security is mostly studied in relation to development, disaster risk reduction and migration or climate induced displacement and health also increasingly so you can see that we have we have little knowledge gaps in understanding how we can how we best address the problem given given the siloed nature of research but also of of our different discourses and our respective policy communities and I do think I mean if I should speak my own mind I think it contributes to problem solving that we see that human security understanding dominates in global governance I mean if we think of the problems on the ground that climate change is is causing both the development in the development world are clearly affected like for example but since the 1970s for example over 95 percent of all deaths from climate and weather related disasters have occurred in developing countries and we should not forget that particularly for these countries it's a concern that that more severe natural hazards increase the risk of displacement social unrest and conflict and Nina's mentioned really good examples and I think this is the work well the well where the work of the multilaterals comes in for example Ocha's disaster relief but also how one works preventively with disaster risk reduction and with climate related development issues and health issues and and ultimately for me human security ought to be in the center of the debate not only to improve problem solving on the ground but also to reduce the the gaps between the policy communities oh interesting we have a question from Bessie in the chat about this how we can break the silo mentality on climate governance but it seems that would be one of your suggestions that the human security concept can sort of break down the traditional barriers between different silos in international organizations am I understanding you right Lisa that's my hypothesis based on what I know from the fieldwork that we've done and the document studies and any other thoughts on the on the silo question how can we tear down the barriers between different policy communities in global government or climate governance Nina I can I can say something so I think what we we see this silos also partly in in research I mean there's often when we look for example in the research on there's the peacebuilding community right there's the the the mediation community or so these are also kind of partly partly silo so I think one step that how how we can do it as researcher is I think to increasingly address these these these interlinkages and and bridge these these these issue areas ourselves to provide the knowledge for how also others can or the practitioners and policies can do that yes and some some advertising them for the the Mr Geopolitics program from me then because that's exactly what it's all about isn't it anyway Björn Ula you you also talked here about the securitization and the potential risks in that when it comes to climate change because obviously if we see this only as a source of potential international security challenges and and war over resources then then there's a risk we tackle it in in the absolute wrong ways obviously but at the same time within amongst a lot of climate activist groups and and not least Fridays for Futures and and get a tattoo and very we we hear the argument that this must be approached as a crisis and and it's it's also been made comparisons between the pandemic where that is treated very much like a crisis and we we we throw enormous energy and resources at it and and that's climate change then deserves the same type of crisis approach. Do you think this would be the right approach and and how how would this be different from securitization a a crisis if you will that's climate activists are pushing for. That's extremely good analogy I think because it's a crisis definitely in the terms that it's extremely difficult to change this point in the situation that we are the responses though don't have to be state of emergency or or even in terms of of a threat to national security in order for us to prioritize this. So if you think about the response to the pandemic for instance that how states are responding and to what extent the state of emergency would be invoked can have repercussions how legitimate the policies will be in the long run then what kind of society we are creating that's why the focus on transform transformation and the crisis the crisis response then in the EU for instance now in the Green Deal is to try to to see this how can we transform Europe to a more pleasant society a more healthy society a greener society so you can have a crisis response without invoking sort of this more totalitarian way there is always risk with the language of emergent state of emergency or threat to or war metaphors and so on that we stimulate the thinking of a more a response that it's more in a well in a more totalitarian responses or surpassing democratic institutions and so on while if we stimulate the imagination and the creativity and so on but of course we need to still be treated as a crisis there I agree with the Fridays for the futures the emergency language though I am a bit more wary of what that might take us anyone like else like to chime in on this topic I think that the question of whether a crisis vacation or a securitization of climate change really helps problem solving or helps us to to gain a unified and better understanding of climate security risks and their problems that that's a really important topic of discussion and I think we have very little very little solid scientific knowledge on that issue I think studies of framing of climate security risks and what it does to the the the the improvement of policy responses in different policy communities in global governance is I mean knowledge is very thin so we're on thin ice here but I think we should we should ask ourselves whether we're in this crisis and this kind of discourse for the long run or whether we want to in the short run raise attention for the issue but I'm also hesitant as to whether it's productive to keep up this crisis laden or security laden discourse for a long time I'm not I think we can only speculate what it does to the debate but we should critically ask ourselves how how we put things and that's why I think that the human security concept has a lot of promise because it is a concept that is recognized in both national security discourse and the the more human oriented and development oriented policy communities. Thank you very much. Someone in relation to this there's a question in the chat from Paula Vesco at Uppsala University about the emotional framing that Lisa mentioned in the presentation. Do you find any particular connotation positive or negative attached to the emotional framing here and is there any any intuition behind the emotional framing being more prevalent in food security than other parts of human security I guess than is the question. Yes we we we observe the emotional framing especially in the areas of food security and it also we have also found that frame diffusion or yes diffusion of the specific understanding of climate security risks in terms of food security is actually spurred if UN agencies adopt an emotional an emotional tone to to the communication. We also find that emotional tonality so to speak promotes frame diffusion in relation to biodiversity risks climate disaster risks and greenhouse gas emissions but in other policy areas we find emotional framings less prevalent and we sometimes sorry I should have said that we find we also find negative effects we find for example that emotional framings of greenhouse gas emissions sorry mitigation reduced the likelihood of frame diffusion so it's not only that the emotionality varies across policy areas but it's also that it varies in terms of effects on on on frame diffusion with positive effects on food security but negative on mitigation for example. Excellent is this emotional or these emotional aspects something you find in in your research as well Maria when you look at the the framing in international organizations for example. We haven't seen them specifically with the emotions this is a survey so we provided answers to the respondents which of course limits what we could what we could ask so not specifically about emotions now. We have a rather specific question here on the on the COPs now it's the climate conferences what exactly does it stand for help me out here and how effective they have been in any case. Conference of parties to the UN agency. Thank you how effective have these been in enhancing climate change governance would you argue. Well massive question yeah good one though I think they have been effective in terms of spreading the word about climate change but also as I was talking about frame diffusion I think framing climate change in specific ways framing it as an international issue that all states should be interested in dealing with but also as we've seen now after Paris after the Paris Agreement that it has also the COPs or the UNFCCC have put more resources into also engaging non-state actors such as business or civil society or different types of organizations so I think that they they have a real important position as a hub for climate change governance. I think a sort of geopolitical international security question here from Marlin have you seen in your research a particular geographical area that could be singled out as a sort of a bigger geopolitical risk due to climate change and if so is it possible to mitigate the risk by speaking more openly about this and Felix Messonnier is also asking in relation to his area the Horn of Africa where we're saying that there's they're often subjected to cross-border related climate conflicts do you see any of these trends we saw the vulnerabilities map so sort of from Nina there but other particular areas of tension globally where you see climate change sort of enhancing risks of international security and discord Nina do you want to start perhaps? Sure I mean the most kind of violent armed conflicts that we see today are internal ones when I think about geopolitical crisis and when I think about the future one area that is often singled out is the Arctic region where we have kind of big shifts Horn of Africa is important too I think one of the important issues there is also how how energies dealt with and the issues of dam and energy production that could potentially be something or water issues that could potentially be something that are lead to more tensions in the future so I think there are these are two areas where I could think also about kind of more geopolitical transboundary transboundary issues emerging. If I may add also Robert so just I just want to echo what Nina said especially on the transboundary issues but something that we have put our attention to in the message of politics program is precisely sort of the transboundary impacts of climate change not only the impacts in the geographical area where they occur but what this means for trade routes and international resource flows and with more and more focused on AI as a response to climate change and the sustainable development goals we see an increased competition also in the cyberspace so it's not only about geographical space here but we need to have our focus on those areas as well. Yeah and I might add also from a from a sort of conflict researcher perspective that sometimes the issue at hand isn't the issue but rather the conflict between the actors so where there is tension and where there is limited governance structures to mitigate those conflicts whatever reason can be used to pick up arms and that means wherever there is tension and potential conflict climate change might be the factor that is used to get one's political will through in the international order so to speak so that might be well it's a reversed order of effects I guess as well it doesn't it's not necessarily climate change that leads to conflict but sort of conflict rather using climate change as an excuse to improve one's position. Final question for you we're running out of time but there's some really important lessons to be learned here and I'd like to move closer to home then what can we take away from a Swedish perspective what would you hope the Swedish government to take away from your film from your research anyone would like to start how can the Swedish government use the climate conferences for example which issue should they emphasize what kind of language should they promote any thoughts? I don't know what they should be doing and my research is in global governance what we have observed is that these silos of scientific knowledge and of different languages on climate security in different policy communities is not really helping problem solving so I think if possible it's surely a good idea to think about how we can bridge policy communities even at the national level in Sweden to bring in thoughts discourse about climate security risks different types of climate security risks and what they mean in different issue areas and how we can engage with them. Thank you and I would like to just add that the traditional Swedish role of being a bridge build I think is particularly important in the light of the survey that Maria just presented where we still see this tension between the have and the have nots in the world and those are affected by climate change and those are not and those are well to do and those are not and the Swedish efforts when it comes to our development to cooperation and so on to not only look at the vulnerable countries but also as somebody said here the vulnerable regions the vulnerable groups within the countries I think it's tremendously important for us to build trust for the future and of course also try to mitigate a disaster and a terrible situation that we know are coming and that we know will increase through the years to come. Yes I think what we are facing here is obviously a global phenomenon a global challenge that will require global responses and not even the most powerful countries in the world can tackle climate change on their own and even though it seems the richer part of the world now sees this as a problem for others I think there will be a rude awakening when we realize that climate change will affect us all and that it also might have in some way stronger effects in communities that are not at all used to serious vulnerabilities like Sweden for example. But in connection then with the initial remarks here Averill Haynes I think your research finds that first of all this is not necessarily an international security this this is not a a clear driver of conflict I think that's one of the key takeaways we have from this seminar and that means securitizing this issue might be quite a risk in terms of of leading away from the actual types of responses that we want to see to this global challenge. My key takeaway is also the fact that the MISTRA geopolitics research program is brought on in addressing some of the key knowledge gaps that that we need to fill in order to respond to these crises in an appropriate way and also in terms of understanding how international operations do look at these issues and how they can perhaps also improve the way they frame but also tackle these issues and I think we didn't have much time for it but there's there's enormous lessons at both the global and the national level in tackling these issues as well so I really want to thank all the speakers the researchers who provided this important knowledge but I also want to thank all of you at home for not only listening in but also contributing in in a very meaningful way through your excellent questions. Thank you all once again and I hope to see you all in the near future. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you.