This push to frame climate change as a threat to security, often driven by a desire to prioritise and elevate it, can be led by various actors including activist groups and governments. The goal may be to galvanise transformative action, however the reality is that ‘securitisation’ – the process by which issues are framed as existential threats to national security – tends itself to promote and legitimise militarised and authoritarian responses. 

At the launch of the report at LSE Iavor Rangelov warned of the very real dangers securitisation represents to civic space, particularly the normalisation of security measures: “the idea that we can suspend democracy for a short while and then easily go back to it, is very problematic”. 

Trends of securitisation 

FICS has been supporting donors to take strategic action on securitisation since it was identified in the major review we published in 2020 on the trends that would shape the future of civic space.  From the 150 funders, civil society groups and activists that we spoke with, the abuse of national security powers was identified as the most significant challenge to civic space globally. Much of the cohort highlighted how post-9/11 counterterrorism legislation had been weaponised directly and indirectly, against human rights defenders, civil society groups and political activists, to curtail their actions. 

Since 9/11, more and more national and transnational public policy issues are being reframed as issues of national security ‘requiring’ hard security responses. Civil society actors working on issues from immigration to humanitarian response, public health, and now climate are seeing their work reframed as a security threat. From government crackdowns on social media in Pakistan and criminalisation of protest and free expression across Europe, to new government actions in the USA that look to target migration intermediaries through a counter-terror approach, restrictions in the name of national security are on the rise and set to be the dominant driver of closing civic space this decade.  

Drawing on insights and evidence from the war on terror and the spread of global counterterrorism in the past two decades, the new LSE report identifies three pathways through which climate change is being securitised: Prioritisation, Militarisation and Authoritarianisation. It looks at the specific threats each of these pathways pose to the future of civic space, identifies opportunities to mitigate these risks, and provides a series of practical recommendations for funders and the field.

The risks of ‘climate emergency’ framing

Human-driven climate change is a genuine existential threat to humanity and requires urgent action. The more we see its effects (fires, floods, crop failures), the more communities across the globe are demanding their leaders take meaningful action. Government responses (particularly in the Global North) have centred national security rather than addressing climate change as a global challenge, often using emergency legislation and tactics originally designed for narrow counter-terrorism purposes to avoid accountability to the public and repress civic freedoms.   

However, this clearly hinders effective action; a growing body of evidence suggests that democratic governments with strong rule of law, low levels of corruption and an enabling environment for civil society and independent media generate better climate policy outputs. As such, there is an urgent need for ongoing dialogue and awareness among policymakers in how we navigate this moment. Speaking at the launch of ‘Climate Emergency and the Future of Civic Space’, FICS Director Poonam Joshi notes, “the climate crisis creates an opportunity to question the dominance of the hard security paradigm, offer a concrete entry point to tackle rising authoritarianism”. 

For progressive movements and climate funders alike, it is vital that we raise awareness around the risks of using securitised climate narratives and the need to develop alternative frames, discourses and practices.