Statement by the Deputy Permanent Representative, Ambassador João Genésio de Almeida Filho, during the Security Council Open Debate on “Sea-Level Rise – Implications for International Peace and Security” February 14th, 2023

Mr. President,

I would like to thank you for the initiative of convening this meeting and providing us with the opportunity to exchange views on possible sea-level rise implications for international peace and security.

Indeed, no ecosystem or State is protected from the negative impacts of climate change, but its effects on oceans may bear even more significant implications for statehood. They can also threaten the livelihoods of communities and impact human mobility.

Sea-level rise as a consequence of climate change is particularly critical to Small Island States. We strongly empathize with their claim that their very existence is threatened by this phenomenon.

This issue is of such importance that it must be discussed in an inclusive, legitimate, and representative forum, with the mandate and right tools to tackle climate change and its implications.

It does not fall within the mandate of the Security Council to discuss climate change. If, as set out in the concept note, the goal of this discussion is to focus on how to prevent political and security concerns related to sea-level rise and build resilience, then the securitization of this debate may prove itself undesirable and counterproductive.

First, because, as underscored by the Secretary-General in his "Our Common Agenda" report, one of the primary roles of the United Nations should be to act as a source of reliable data and evidence, and the same should be applied to the Security Council. In this case, there is no evidence proving that climate change directly causes armed conflicts.

In this regard, the Sixth Assessment Report of the IPCC stated that, not only are non-climatic factors the dominant drivers of existing intrastate conflicts, but even in some assessed regions where extreme weather and climate events "have had a small, adverse impact on the length, severity or frequency of intrastate violent conflicts, the statistical association is weak". Moreover, the document also stresses that "compared to other socioeconomic factors the influence of climate on conflict is assessed as relatively weak".

Second, because, despite the many tools in its toolbox, the Security Council does not have the ones we need to fight climate change nor to build resilience against its impacts. Thus, a security-centered discussion cannot offer solutions to support countries affected by sea-level rise, most particularly Small Island Developing States.

Mr. President,

Instead, we believe that climate change and sea-level rise implications need to be dealt with through international law and cooperation for development. The first relates to the political and legal implications of sea-level rise for States. The second is a necessary condition for the implementation of the consensually agreed goals of the 2030 Agenda, the Sendai Framework, and the UNFCCC and its Paris Agreement. The COPs of the UNFCCC are the fora where the countries most affected by climate change and its implications have a permanent seat, unlike the UN Security Council.

Brazil also reiterates its position that solutions to the complex legal implications arising from the topic should be crafted in the framework of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, including the Meeting of States Parties.

The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea also has an important role to play, especially in the context of the Advisory Opinion on Climate Change and 3 International Law, submitted by the Commission of Small Islands States, in December 2022.

The work of the International Law Commission is also key in enhancing our understanding of the legal implications of sea-level rise, including issues pertaining to the law of the sea, protection of persons, and statehood. Information and legal certainty are crucial tools to prevent disputes between Member States.

Mr. President,

On the sustainable development front, we note with concern that, despite the huge interest expressed in our oceans today, SDG 14 is still the least funded of them all. If we want to build resilience in countries and communities affected by sealevel rise, the first step is to fulfill the goals we have set for ourselves in that respect, some of which are already outdated.

Moreover, developed countries do not seem to be as keen on fulfilling their climate finance commitments under the UNFCCC as they are on insisting on addressing these issues within the Security Council. This insistence only reinforces the perception that there is an interest in deviating attention from clear implementation gaps in the 2030 Agenda and in the climate change regime, particularly in the provision of means of implementation for developing countries by developed countries. One of the most relevant outcomes of COP-27 was precisely the decision to establish a dedicated fund for loss and damage caused by climate change to assist developing countries that are particularly vulnerable, a decision that Brazil fully supported.

I take this opportunity to stress the urgent need for all developed countries to fulfill and update their long overdue climate finance commitments under the UNFCCC and its Paris Agreement, including the mobilization of $100 billion per year to address the needs of developing countries by 2020. The mobilization, scale up and timely delivery of climate financing by developed nations are the need of the hour to support developing States affected by sea-level rise and other implications of climate change.

Mr. President,

Climate change and its related challenges, such as sea-level rise, should be handled with development and international law tools. Such discussions must remain open to the entire membership of the United Nations. We must strive to avoid duplication of work and ensure that specific mandates and responsibilities within the UN system are respected. Time and energy diverted to reallocate the climate agenda to the Security Council would be better spent by fostering financial flows to support existing commitments and enhanced climate and ocean action.

The current consensus that the economic, social and environmental challenges must be assessed jointly and in a balanced manner through the lens of sustainable development is the result of five decades of multilateral efforts in the United Nations - starting in Stockholm, in 1972, followed by Rio, in 1992 and 2012, and ending in New York, in 2015, with the adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Let us not put this multilateral achievement of the past half century at risk to further advance the encroachment of the Security Council into the climate change agenda.

I thank you.