Climate Risk Is Forcing Multilateralism to Evolve

Image: 80's child / Shutterstock

A new trend is emerging in climate diplomacy: some of the most consequential conversations are happening in new, multi actor dialogues that sit alongside the formal calendar, and increasingly shape what formal institutions can deliver.

London Climate Action Week in June offered a clear glimpse of this shift. One month on, the calendar ahead reinforces it. In early August, partners will convene in Colombo for the Bay of Bengal Climate, Peace and Security Dialogue to translate climate risk into cooperation on peace and security in a shared maritime space. In late September, Climate Week NYC will again pull political, financial and corporate power into the same week. In October, the Berlin Climate and Security Conference will continue to test how far the climate security agenda can move from diagnosis to delivery.

None of these spaces replaces multilateralism. They are evidence that it is changing shape.

Governments remain in the room. However, so are cities and regions, courts and regulators, investors and insurers, businesses, civil society organisations, researchers, and a generation of young people who continue to remind the rest of us that time matters.

This is not the end of multilateralism. It is its reinvention.

We can call it plurilateralism. We can call it coalition building. We can call it adaptation under pressure. The label matters less than the reality: climate governance is increasingly carried by an ecosystem of actors that convenes faster than formal institutions and, at its best, connects expertise across domains that institutions still keep in separate rooms.

The Bay of Bengal dialogue illustrates the point. It is a joint undertaking by several organisations, and it explores regional climate cooperation through institutions that rarely feature in mainstream climate conversations, including the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC).

That matters, because geopolitics has returned to climate with a vengeance.

Climate risks are no longer framed as distant environmental concerns. In London, the conversation consistently treated climate change as a generator of systemic risk: pressures that cascade across security, trade, economic stability, public health and social cohesion. In other words, climate change increasingly functions as a stress test for the systems that underpin everyday life.

This shift in framing creates an opportunity. It also creates a trap.

The opportunity

The opportunity lies in the fact that once climate becomes a question of resilience and stability, new communities show up with tools, mandates and money.

In London, water and nature repeatedly emerged as entry points for action. Not because they replace climate, but because they often cut through the polarisation that still surrounds mitigation politics. Water insecurity is immediate. Ecosystem collapse is tangible. Supply chain disruption, food price shocks and displacement do not require a specialised vocabulary to be understood.

Put simply: water and nature help translate the climate crisis into a language that finance ministries, defence establishments, insurers, regulators and foreign policy officials can act on.

This is why it matters that some governments are now treating biodiversity and ecosystem degradation as security and prosperity risks, not only as environmental problems. The UK’s recent move to convene a dedicated climate security taskforce sends a clear signal: preparedness for climate and nature risks is becoming mainstream business, not a niche concern.

The trap

The trap is that freelance multilateralism can become freelance fragmentation.

Even in climate security circles, we still struggle to connect disciplines, sectors and data. We still convene in bubbles. We still default to familiar narratives while the risk picture grows more complex.

The result is that we often describe cascading risks without building the machinery to anticipate them, and we promise “integration” without changing how decisions are made.

That gap matters. Nature loss can unfold gradually until it does not. Infrastructure systems can appear robust until they fail in a way that cascades. Markets can price risk late, and then price it brutally.

A serious climate security agenda therefore needs to move from awareness to preparedness. That requires three changes.

First, decision makers need to treat water and nature risks as core inputs to national and regional risk assessments, on a par with other geopolitical risks.

Second, climate security needs to escape its own policy ghetto. The conversation must sit where the incentives live: trade, finance, industrial policy, critical minerals, food systems and disaster preparedness.

Third, we need mechanisms that connect what people know to what institutions do. That means bringing community perspectives into the same frame as scientific analysis and security assessments, and translating research into operational and diplomatic options.

What comes next

Freelance multilateralism is not a substitute for formal cooperation. It is a signal that the world is moving, even when institutions lag.

The opportunity is clear: this wider ecosystem can connect the people who hold the levers of risk, from finance and trade to infrastructure, health and security. The trap is equally clear: without shared priorities and accountability, it can become a noisy marketplace of initiatives that never add up to preparedness.

The most useful shift I saw at London Climate Action Week was actually rhetorical, not practical. When climate and nature are framed as systemic risks, they stop being somebody else’s problem. They become risks to prosperity, trade, health and social cohesion at home.

In a political moment when many voters in developed countries are turning inwards, that framing matters. It does not dilute solidarity with fragile contexts. It makes prevention politically legible everywhere.

That is the work ahead: use this new framing to turn awareness into readiness, before shocks turn into crises.

Related articles:

Innovative Approaches to Climate, Peace and Security: Opportunities for India–Germany–Australia Collaboration (3-minute read)

Building Resilience Through Climate Action: Gender, Peace, and Security in Sri Lanka (3-minute read)

Security Beyond Defence: Why Vanuatu Should Have a National Climate Security Plan (3-minute read)

The Author