Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in the blog articles belong solely to the author of the content, and do not necessarily reflect the European Commission's perspectives on the issue.

Marie Sophie is a recent graduate of the Research Master in European Studies at Maastricht University and holds a Bachelor in Political Science of LMU Munich. She gained valuable professional experience as a Blue Book Trainee at the Joint Research Center as well as Intern at the United Nations focusing on sustainable development, climate governance, public policy and science for policy. This blog post bridges her research interest in climate security with her work at the Science for Policy Unit of the Joint Research Centre.

A new governance imperative: foresight in climate security 

In a period defined by unprecedented environmental challenges and global insecurity, the intersection of foresight and climate security presents a compelling avenue for future policymaking. Current extreme weather events, such as floods, droughts, and hurricanes worldwide, highlight the clear connection between climate change and its adverse effects on human livelihoods. Foresight, an analytical and future-oriented approach that involves anticipating long-term developments can provide useful ways to navigate through the negative security implications of climate change, namely climate security. The value of foresight for policymaking is increasingly recognized and efforts have been made to implement it, recently also within an EU project[1] on evidence-informed policymaking including the focus on strategic foresight. In this blog post, after presenting the concept of foresight and climate security, I discuss three reasons for the usefulness of including foresight in climate security policymaking.

Understanding foresight

Foresight is an interdisciplinary and future-oriented approach to anticipate what could happen in the long term beyond mere predictions. By including everything that may happen and is not just likely to happen, foresight can serve as input for strategic planning. Foresight methods can include, for example, horizon-scanning or scenario-planning exercises to stress-test policies.

Foresight can thus play a crucial role in anticipatory governance. One example of such efforts is a European Commission project launched in 2022 aimed at reforming public administrations and incorporating strategic foresight actions. The project “Building capacity for evidence informed policymaking in governance and public administration in post-pandemic Europe”[2] is a Technical Support Instrument (TSI) multi-country project funded by the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Structural Reform Support (DG REFORM) and jointly conducted by the Joint Research Center (DG JRC) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).  It supports seven EU Member States in building capacities to enhance the institutional integration of evidence, research and evaluation for policymaking. One aspect of this project included a mutual learning exercise on foresight. This brought together different actors from the participating EU Member States engaged in foresight to promote the exchange of practices between them, the European Commission, and the OECD. The event explored ways and barriers to integrate foresight into institutional structures and policymaking processes across all stages of the policy cycle and demonstrated the role of futures literacy for the integration of foresight into policymaking.[3]

Defining climate security

Climate security means studying the security implications of climate change on individuals, communities and states. Most commonly a distinction is made between climate change affecting human security and national security. The first understanding suggests that climate and environmental hazards, like floods and droughts, can threaten human livelihoods reducing people’s abilities and opportunities. The second understanding focuses on how climate change undermines state security, such as by increasing the risk of conflict and instability through regional water scarcity. However, climate change is generally not seen as a direct cause but rather as a ‘threat multiplier’ that worsens existing insecurities within nations or communities. 

The value of integrating foresight and climate security governance

Considering the aims of climate security and the objectives of foresight outlined above, I argue that there is a valuable connection between the two (see also US Department of Homeland Security, 2021; NATO, 2023). I propose three key reasons for integrating foresight into climate security governance in public administration. It is essential to do so:

1. To manage and understand the complex issue of climate security within the governance context;
2. To improve the future readiness of policies, accounting for uncertainties surrounding the impacts of climate security; and
3. To enhance stakeholder engagement and ownership around the topic of climate security.

First, foresight approaches can help to break down complexity and translate compound matters into manageable actions. Complexity of climate security derives from the crucial combination of understanding natural phenomena (natural science) with socio-economic processes (social science). Climate risks in their potentially abrupt (and non-linear) and surely complex nature need new tools and approaches of dealing with them. To that end, foresight can help to understand and manage climate security-related risks at government levels. Its analytical approach can help to grasp the issue, break it into its core drivers and create an anticipatory look of what may be happening and how to react. Using foresight approaches in governmental policymaking would, therefore, make climate security more manageable and easier to comprehend. 

Second, foresight can help to make policymaking better prepared for climate security risks and policies more future-ready. The foresight approach is a way to incorporate a (yet) unclear future and, therefore, contribute to a government’s future readiness. The focus on plausible instead of probable outcomes in the future is one of the key aspects of foresight. This is especially useful for situations where information is limited, or outcomes are uncertain, as with climate security. While we know that climate change can lead to issues like land loss, which in turn can trigger food and human insecurity, it is impossible to pinpoint a single, definitive link between climate change and human livelihoods. Governments need to prepare for and be aware of a range of possibilities in the future. Foresight tools such as scenario building can help with the challenge of uncertainty by drawing attention to different scenarios that can be prepared for and can stress-test policies to make them future-ready. Consequently, policymakers should be widely encouraged to use foresight tools to address and manage uncertainties, stress-test existing policies and make policies future-ready.

Third, integrating foresight and climate security can enhance stakeholder engagement and ownership around the topic. Climate security efforts need the involvement of various stakeholders such as climate scientists, security practitioners, policymakers, economists and social scientists. Foresight practices are a unique opportunity to gather these different actors and their insights at one table and to anticipate potential futures together. This not only further legitimizes the process but also has the potential to enhance stakeholders’ acceptance of foresight outcomes. Due to spreading contestation of climate change and climate science, practicing foresight could facilitate that stakeholder groups appropriate the topic for themselves and take ownership. This collaborative and participatory approach would be more than desirable in relation to climate risk targeting measures. In that sense, foresight approaches not only help to create increased participation and common accountability for future (climate) challenges but can eventually also strengthen democracy.

Navigating challenges

As shown, the fields of foresight and climate security are not only compatible and already interconnected, but there are also strong arguments for integrating foresight into climate security governance. Beyond this, we also have to acknowledge the challenges involved in practicing foresight and applying it to climate security. 

First, foresight is difficult. It is a mental challenge that can go against human prejudices and cognitive biases. Second, foresight complements, rather than replaces, traditional governmental planning. Implementing it requires extra resources, such as skilled staff, training, and time, alongside the busy schedules of policymakers. Third, differences in social science perspectives can hinder the academic foresight process, and varying expectations due to different terminologies among research communities need to be bridged for effective foresight practice.

Nevertheless, foresight approaches can provide helpful tools to create forward-looking policies on climate security. If public administrations create awareness and acquire expertise and personnel, we can prepare better for a climate-challenged future.
 

[1] See https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/news/seven-eu-member-states-will-receive-support-reforms-promote-evidence-informed-policymaking_en
[2] https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/evidence-informed-policy-making/topic/reforms-science-policy-7-member-states_en
[3] See https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/projects-activities/introducing-multi-country-technical-support-project-building-capacity-evidence_en