Policy brief by the Danish Institute for International Studies, January 2026.
Geopolitical divisions, funding cuts and US withdrawal from climate commitments are placing renewed strain on addressing climate, peace and security (CPS) in the UN Security Council (UNSC). Coordinated and pragmatic engagement can help sustain the progress achieved so far.
CPS is a recurring topic of debate within the UNSC that, despite never achieving a formal thematic mandate, is now reflected in 11 missions. CPS engagement in the UNSC rests on an understanding that the impacts of climate change deepen vulnerabilities that can aggravate existing threats to international peace and security, placing the issue within the UNSC’s charter-given mandate. CPS-supportive council members also acknowledge that climate impacts challenge UN peacekeeping operations and that addressing climate change is important to both peacebuilding efforts and the conflict prevention mandate of the UNSC.
As an elected member of the UNSC (2025-2026), Denmark has positioned itself as a champion of CPS by collaborating on events and linking CPS to the protection of civilians, peace operations, and the ‘Women, Peace and Security’ agenda. These efforts unfold in a challenging political environment, marked by funding cuts to UN missions and a renewed focus on rearmament and hard-security priorities, risking underprioritizing climate change and eroding progress on CPS.
Main takeaway
The inclusion of climate change within the UNSC's remit has been divisive. A 2021 resolution on climate and security received support from 113 member states and 12 UNSC members; it was vetoed by Russia, with China and India abstaining. While not denying climate change, these countries argued that the resolution would shift climate financing and measures away from developing countries, thereby infringing on national sovereignty. Underlying the opposition is also a general reluctance to include broader themes within the definition of peace and security within the UNSC's remit. China has increasingly acknowledged climate-related peace and security risks. Especially those more firmly articulated by African member states, which also counter concerns over sovereignty and the dominance of European interests. The opposition under the Trump administration appears to be a bigger challenge, as funding cuts and uncertainties are driven by climate denial.
Given the current trajectory of global emissions, climate change impacts on societal security will undoubtedly intensify, especially in conflict-affected and fragile contexts. An immediate priority for Denmark and other CPS supporters is to safeguard existing gains through the IEG and the Joint Pledges, continuing close coordination, and ensuring that CPS language and practices are maintained where they already exist. Pragmatic, data-driven, case-by-case approaches that emphasise operational effectiveness in UN missions and concrete country-specific climate-security linkages offer the most realistic path forward. Referring to concrete risks such as floods, droughts, food insecurity, or environmental degradation rather than ‘climate change’ may, in certain contexts, enable missions to address growing climate-related risks in ways that resonate across political lines.
“Framing climate change as core to the effectiveness of peace operations offers a viable entry point for sustaining momentum on CPS.”
It is vital to scale up political and financial engagement on CPS in the UNSC, which must be complemented and reinforced through other forums, including beyond the UN system, but this is increasingly under pressure. In the EU and NATO, rearmament, the political prioritisation of hard security, and the US’s shift in position all risk stalling progress on CPS in these bodies. The EU and Denmark's climate-security focus and collaboration with regional organisations offer a key entry point, such as the African Union, ASEAN and the Pacific Island Forum. It is crucial that climate change is treated not as a secondary priority but as integral to both societal security and military capabilities.
Key recommendations
- Under current political and funding constraints, sustain global attention on CPS in UNSC debates and maintain the climate focus in existing mandates, rather than pursue a thematic resolution.
- Apply case-by-case CPS approaches focused on the operational effectiveness of UN missions and expand context-specific analyses of climate security linkages that are actionable, rather than emphasising broad causality claims.
- Place the voices and needs of the most climate security affected countries at the forefront in the UNSC-context and scale up complementary CPS efforts beyond the UN.
Photo Credit: Davi Mendes on Unsplash.
This text is based on extracts from a report published by the Danish Institute for International Studies. The report is authored by Helene Maria Kyed and Justine Chambers. To read the full version of the article, follow this link.