Environmental Security : A conceptual investigating study

J

I

B

S

JÖNKÖPING UNIVERSITY

E n v i r o n m e n ta l S e c u r i t y

A conceptual investigating study

Master thesis in Political Science Author: Elin Sporring Jonsson Tutor: Mikael Sandberg Jönköping 2009

Abstract

The purpose of this thesis is to explore the concept of environmental security. A concept that have made way on to the international arena since the end of the Cold War, and have become of more importance since the 1990’s. The discussion regarding man-made environmental change and its possible impacts on the world is very topical; especially with the Nobel Peace Prize winners in 2007 the Intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) and Al Gore.

The concept of environmental security is examined through a conceptual investigating study. The reason for this type of study is due to the complexity of the concept and a hope to find a ‘best’ definition to it. A conceptual investigating study is said to help create order in an existing discussion of a social problem, hence the reason for it in this thesis.

The outcome of this thesis is that it is near impossible to find a ‘best’ or one definition to the concept of environmental security and that another method to deal with the concept might have presented another result.

Sammanfattning

Syftet med denna uppsats är att undersöka konceptet environmental security. Detta koncept har gjort sin väg till ett internationellt erkännande sedan Kalla kriget, och har sedan 1990-talet blivit allt mer aktuellt. Diskussionen gällande människans inverkan på klimatförändringarna och klimathotet är ständigt aktuellt, i synnerhet med tanke på vinnarna av Nobels Freds Pris 2007, med Al Gore i spetsen.

Konceptet environmental security är i denna uppsats undersökt genom en begreppsutredande studie. Anledningen till denna typ av studie är att konceptet är såpass komplext men även baserat på hoppet av att hitta en ’bästa’ möjliga definition. Begreppsutredande studier sägs kunna skapa ordning i en existerande diskussion vilket kan ses som den främsta anledningen valet av den i denna uppsats.

Resultatet av studien och denna uppsats är att det är i stort sett omöjligt att etablera en bästa definition av begreppet environmental security, samt att en annan metod förmodligen hade presenterat ett annat resultat.

“The environmental threats facing the planet are not simply the result of scientific miscalculations. Nor are they merely the consequence of ill-conceived management decisions. Ironically, it is the notion of security upon which our entire modern worldview is based that has led us to the verge of ecocide... In less than a century the practice of geopolitics has pushed the world to the brink of both nuclear Armageddon and environmental catastrophe, forcing us to reconsider the basic assumptions of security that animate the modern worldview.”

Table of Contents

Abstract ... i

Sammanfattning... ii

1

Introduction ... 1

1.1 Problem Formulation and Purpose ...2

2

Method ... 3

2.1 Previous Conceptual Investigating Studies ...3

2.2 Literature Selection, Critics, and Material ...4

2.3 Delimitations ...6

2.4 Structure of the Thesis ...6

3

Historical Background to the Concept of

Environmental Security ... 7

4

Security ... 9

4.1 Referent Object of Security ...10

4.2 Security Concept and the Environment ...11

5

Different approaches to the Concept of Environmental

Security... 12

5.1 Insecurity and Human Security...13

5.2 Securitisation and the Copenhagen School...14

5.3 Differences and similarities between Copenhagen School and Human Security Approach ...15

6

Environmental Change and its Impacts... 17

6.1 Environmental Degradation and Violent Conflict ...17

6.2 Environmental Change and National Security ...21

6.3 Armed Forces and the Environment ...24

6.4 Summary ...25

7

Analysis ... 26

8

Conclusion... 29

References ... 31

1

Introduction

Since the end of the Cold War we have seen a variety of changes in the world we live in. The ending of the Cold War put an end to the ‘balance of power’ between the US and the Soviet Union and made way for a new concept of security. In the wake of these troubled times, with a constant fear of nuclear wars and power struggle between the US and in the Soviet Union, a number of scholars started questioning and debating parts of the international relations theory.

Even if the environment always has had impact on our everyday lives, it is since the end of the end of the Cold War we see environmental concerns to be an important part of discussions regarding global security. That is, at least with regards to North America and Europe (Dalby 2002, p. xix).

The possibility for warfare over access to scarce resources and intact environments makes way for discussions regarding the global security and has caused a considerable amount of research and much public discussion. (Dalby 2002, p. xix) Recall the Nobel Peace Prize winners from 2007, the Intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) and Al Gore, “…for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change” (Norwegian Nobel Committee).

A broadening of the security agenda that we have seen in the post-cold war era, have introduced numerous non-traditional threats to security. Among these threats we could mention: drugs, diseases (HIV/aids), and failed states. The environment was the major single theme to affect the broadening, and that got the greatest attention and produced the most intense political discussion at least during the 1990’s. (Dalby 2002, p. xx) This should however not be seen as an ignorant attempt to belittle the importance that war on terror and terrorism might have had since the 9/11 attacks on World Trade Centre in New York 2001.

However large the impact the concept environmental security has had over the past decades it has rarely been questioned. Whether the questioning of the concept have been regarding the connections between environmental change and conflict, or resource scarcity and conflict between states is not clear. Therefore it becomes of importance to explore what environmental security implies and stands for.

1.1

Problem Formulation and Purpose

There have been several attempts to measure the extent to which environmental change causes violent conflicts within and between countries, and there are explanations of the ways in which environmental change could perhaps undermine national security. Moreover there have been investigations of the ways in which war and preparations for war effect the environment, and there also exists a growing body of research that investigates linkages between environmental security and development issues like poverty or human security (Collins 2006, p. 183).

Specific questions this thesis will answer:

- What is the definition of environmental security? (Is there one?)

- Does environmental scarcity and change cause conflict between countries? These questions might seem too simplified, but it is not that easy, due to the complexity of the concept. The theme of this thesis is also to see if by using a conceptual investigating study a ‘best’ definition of the term exists. It is in that sense the questions serve their main purpose. Therefore in a way an additional question will be:

- Does a conceptual investigating study succeed at determining a ‘best’ definition of environmental security?

There are also other questions the thesis will tackle, but these are not to be addressed directly. The case is that the above questions will provide the continuity and theme of this thesis.

What this thesis strives to achieve, the purpose, is to help create order in the discussion around the social problem of environmental security. As a core in the conceptual investigation, even more fundamental, when research is to ‘highlight’ a new phenomena within the discussion.

2

Method

The term conceptual investigating studies could be described as studies that stops after the investigation of the concept, and does not test it empirically. The main reason for using this specific method is for the purpose of providing a as true as possible scientific presentation. This thesis will be based upon the conceptual investigating method to study the concept of environmental security.

According to Esaiasson (et al 2005) the conceptual investigating study is done, simplified, in five steps.

- Track down and research what have been written about the concept

- Sort the different conceptual definitions, and attempt to find the core of the concept hence also in what way the definitions differ amongst the explanations

- Test whether one or more definitions is logically consistent

- Test whether one or more definitions could provide a possibility to operational and could be useful in empirical science

- If possible, determine what the ‘best’ definition of term is

The way Esaiasson et al use the method of conceptual investigating is that they can help create order in an existing discussion of a social problem.

When the theoretical aspects are in place and the concept is well investigated, the next step would be to operationalise indicators and thus induct an empirical pilot study. As Esaiasson (et al 2005, p. 34-35) suggests that as a student in the process of writing an essay could claim that they perform something that most generally would be described as a combination of the two. This thesis will not test the concept but aims to define it.

2.1

Previous Conceptual Investigating Studies

There have been previous studies of the conceptual investigating kind. Such studies have dealt with concepts like equality and integration.

According to Esaiasson (et al 2005, p. 34) modern classics based upon conceptual investigating and its area of study includes Felix Oppenheim’s article “Political Concepts” and Giovanni Sartoris anthology “Social Science Concepts. A Systematic Analysis”. Both include guides of how a conceptual investigating study is done at the same time presenting a few concrete analysis of concept like freedom, equality, and integration.

2.2

Literature Selection, Critics, and Material

Selection of literature is always hazardous, there is always a need to be critical of the sources. Today we base our knowledge on what we find on the internet, and even if that is not always the case, the information society, with all its sources of communication calls for caution when dealing with references and sources. According to Esaiasson et al 2005, p.304) there are four classic rules to use when we assert of the sources. These rules help evaluate the verity in what the different sources claim.

The four rules are: - Authenticity - Independence - Concurrency - Tendency

Firstly there is a need to make sure the material used is authentic, a basic demand. We need to be certain that the literature is legitimate and that they are in fact written by the author stated. The first criteria used to establish the criticism of the sources is regarding the actual document whilst the other three deals with what is written within the literature. That is the ability to believe what is written. (Ibid., p. 307)

The criteria of independence could be separated into three aspect of just independence, again according to Esaiasson et al 2005. The first one is regarding the possibility to confirm what is written. Second aspect is the distance between the narrator and narrative. That is primary sources are generally found more credible than secondary sources are. However in cases such as this thesis, primary sources and data is near impossible to collect on this level. Third aspect of independence is regarding the narrator’s level of independence. A credible narrative should be originated from an independent narrator. (Ibid., p. 308-309)

Concurrency is more regarding the case of interviews, which it is important to acknowledge that the more times that passes between an occurrence and its recording the less credible it gets. There is an importance here to remember the more time that passes the more possibilities for reconstructions of the event and even failure of memory (Ibid., p. 310). Tendency is referring to the tendency of historical narrators to perhaps provide a consciously skewed narrative of an event. Also to give example it is important to remember or have tendency in mind when discussions arise between political parties as they too wants to account a skewed view of its opponent. (Ibid., p. 311)

Hence the reason for the selection of the literature I base this thesis on and delimitations used are based upon similar criterions to make sure of an as correct outcome as possible.

Before accounting step by step for this thesis selection I would like to present an idea of criticism to bear in mind when reading this thesis and any other critical approach.

“A critique is not a matter of saying that things are not right as they are. It is a matter of pointing out on what kinds of assumptions, what kinds of familiar, unchallenged, unconsidered modes of thought the practices that we accept rest. We must free ourselves from the sacralization of the social as the only reality and stop regarding as superfluous something so essential in human life and in human relations as thought...

Criticism is a matter of flushing out that thought and trying to change it: to show that things are not as self evident as one believed, to see that what is accepted as self-evident will no longer be accepted as such. Practicing criticism is a matter of making facile gestures difficult.”(Dalby 2002, p. xxx)

Down below follows a description of the selection of the literature used in this thesis. I find it generally to be the case that the more frequently a source is quoted or referred to be a good measurement of its validity along the lines as Esaiasson (et al 2005).

There are a large number of materials in particular with regards to the rethinking of security but also when it comes to the concept of environmental security.

In order to get an over viewing position on the concept I will use the Contemporary Security Studies by Collins ed. 2006 as a starting point. However as the method section suggests and as I hope this thesis will show there is plenty written with regards to this concept. Part from the previously mentioned Collins (2006), the idea is to rely on five main sources and enlarge the literature with articles and other sources as the thesis develops. Main readings will include Dalby (2002), Deudney and Matthew (eds.) (1999), Homer-Dixon (1999), Peluso & Watts (eds.) (2001), and Stripple (2005).

Dalby (2002), Environmental Security, could be described as to provide a critical geopolitical perspective on environmental security which integrates insights from environmental history and ecological theory.

Deudney and Matthew (eds.) (1999), in their Contested Grounds: Security and Conflict in the New

Environmental Politics they bring together a wide range of approaches and perspectives on

the concept of environmental security.

Homer-Dixon (1999), Environment, Scarcity, and violence, one of the most influential authors on the topic of Environmental Security summarises his work on environmental scarcity and violence.

Peluso & Watts (eds.) (2001), Violent Environments, provides a collection of detailed field-based qualitative case studies of environmental disputes.

Stripple (2005), Climate Change after the International, offering a critique of the International Relations theory combined with a study of climate change.

Since the Copenhagen School will play a vital part in this thesis, the writings of Buzan and Weaver could also be viewed as a major source, hence an additional a sixth major reading is: Buzan and Weaver (2003) Regions and Powers – The structure of International Security.

2.3

Delimitations

In the same way Dalby (2002) delimits the subject of environmental security this thesis will not attempt in any detail to account for the history of environmental philosophy. What is at stake here is not to argue about whether environmental change is occurring or not, but to acknowledge how our ‘new’ standard of living, with all material commodities, influence the cultural and political world.

I would like to point out here that this thesis does take the climate and environmental changes for granted. That is not to be tested. Nor will this thesis test the concept of environmental security but as mentioned earlier rather attempt to create order in the discussion of the social problem with the goal of finding a ‘best’ definition.

Hence, delimitations in this thesis follows a focus based on a conceptually investigating study where what is of the greatest importance is to establish a common concept that is environmental security. Therefore the delimitations of concern here is that it is merely focused on an ideal concept and not initially the way it is carried out etc.

2.4

Structure of the Thesis

As chapter 2 suggests, a conceptual investigating study is done most efficiently in five steps. The idea is to track down and research what have been written about the environmental security concept in order to sort different definitions and in due course determine the best definition. The structure will follow this course, starting with a brief background to the concept of environmental security.

Chapter three will provide a historical background to the concept of environmental security. Chapter four discusses the security concept and referent object of security.

The fifth chapter presents the concept of insecurity and its association with human security, and introduces the approach of the Copenhagen School and securitisation. Chapter six approaches how environmental change impacts areas such as conflicts and national security. The sixth chapter is followed by an analysis and a conclusion.

The reason for this structure is to make to topic of environmental security more approachable. But also to build up a greater understanding and therefore all the chapters serve as building blocks to the analysis and later also the conclusion.

By getting a historical background to the concept it is easier to understand where the concept came from. That same logic is behind the positioning of the discussion of the security concept and the referent object of security, in order to understand environmental security we need to understand the concept of security. The fifth chapter presents a figure which collects main interpretations of environmental security and makes it easier to understand to positioning of the following chapters and segments.

3

Historical

Background

to

the

Concept

of

Environmental Security

This chapter will outline a brief historical background to the concept of environmental security.

Even if we could assume with the current environment debate that the concept of environmental security has been around for a long period of time, this has not really been the case. The truth is that the development could be seen to be drawn from the end of the bipolar world order that was created by the Cold War.

What the end of the Cold War contributed to was referred to as a “vertigo” for security policy and studies Collins (2006). With the end of the Cold War ways of thinking about the security concept became less and less of relevance and importance. This development with the growing environmental consciousness of people in developed countries drove a mainstream call for newer issues to enter the security agenda (Collins 2006, p. 187).

There is a fear that the concept of Environmental Security or the general integration of environmental issues and national security concerns at the national policy level could be seen as somewhat contradictive or novel. According to Allenby (2000) as suggested in previous section, claims that the development towards a more environmentally aware public is a predictable product of an environmentally constrained world where the previous stability between capitalism and communism had broken down. (Allenby 2000, p. 5)

As the institution of Environmental Security so neatly puts it “The relation between the environment and the security of humans and nature has been the object of much research and the subject of many publications in recent decades, but it is only recently becoming an important focus of international environmental policy.” (The Institution of Environmental Security homepage)

The way on the other hand Stripple 2005, discusses with regards to the security concept as such that, it was more a ‘natural’ move towards a more environmental approach to security rather than the end of the Cold War. Along these lines the security concept has been the heart of International Relations since 1919. (Stripple 2005, p. 41) Accordingly insecurity has been considered as a natural and timeless feature of existence within the international.

As noted, even with regards to the history of the concept, there are conflicting theories of how environmental security has entered the discourse. The common ground the conflicting concepts stand upon is the impact the end of the Cold War had in one way or another. Historically the environmental issues have been on the international agenda yet it has never been in the form we see today. That is, previously we have seen it in cases like in the 1940’s where population and resources were on the agenda or in the 1970’s where main concerns regarding the environment were largely linked with oil and resources. (Dalby 2002, p. 6) Today, and with the Nobel Peace Prize winners from 2007, the Intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) and Al Gore, we see a turn towards more man-made climate changes and the question of security in that. In addition this brought a reawakening to the general public.

The discussion of shift in referent object is one of the building stones in so called Critical Security Studies (CSS). Something other ‘newer’ approaches to security within the international relations theories also put emphasis on such as e.g. Copenhagen School mentioned later in this thesis. With referent object referring to what needs to be secured, traditionally the state from military threats.

What CSS does is shift approach to security that is based on a desire to move away from the strictures of security as it was studied and practiced during the Cold War and more so make that move by specific means forms of critique. Environmental security could easily be put under the similar label as the CSS with another referent object. (Collins et al 2007) Given the broadened agenda of security or matters to be considered in terms of security, the state could no longer be found as a legitimate singular factor that is the referent object. “In the case of environmental security, the referent object is the planetary attributes necessary to sustain civilization.” (Dalby 2002, p. 7)

Hence it is not all clear how the concept of environmental security have emerged historically, and there are disputes regarding this. It is, as mentioned, clear to see that with the end of the Cold War came an opportunity for ‘new security threats’ to make way on to the international relations agenda. That is in no way to say that the environmental issues might have influenced international relations regardless of the end of the Cold War or not. However in an attempt to sum up how environmental security emerged and its history it could be viewed as it emerged due to in short three reasons. The progress of a growing environmentalism in developed countries after the 1960’s at the same time as the attempts to contest the meaning and practice of security from an environmental standpoint, and also changes in the bipolar world we have seen a shift in since the end of the Cold War. (Collins et al 2007, p. 188)

In the next chapter we will deal with the security concept as well as what impact the referent object of security has when discussing environmental security.

4

Security

In order to grasp what environmental security is and entitles there is a need to describe what security is and in what ways it can be linked to the environment and its problems. As mentioned in the brief historical background previously the concept of environmental security came to the international agenda by the end of the Cold War. The same could be said about the discussion about the concept of security. That is the ‘new’ security that did not in the same way focus on the realistic approach on the topic.

“Security, it was noted, is an elusive term. Like peace, honour, justice, it denotes a quality of relationship which resists definition. It has an active verbal form which seems to take it out of the realm of the abstruse, and a hard tangibility in its nominal form which promises something solid and measurable“ (McSweeney 1999, p. 24).

The concept of security generally used could be described as shaped by the Cold War. That is said with regards to the usage of national security as a key concept in American politics. ‘Security’ was a 1940’s invention by the US and with the institutionalisation of it during the Cold War made it widespread among the allies and later all actors in the international arena. The main purpose for introducing the concept of national security was to present a possibility to justify and coordinate ways and engagements of the traditions to work hand in hand with the large standing military forces (Buzan and Weaver 2003, p. 283).

“Security is about the future or fears about the future. It is about contemporary dangers but also thwarting potential future dangers. It is about control, certainty, and predictability in an uncertain world, and, in attempting to forestall chance and change, it is frequently a violent practice. It is about maintaining certain collective identities, certain senses of who we are, of who we intend to remain, more than who we intend to become. Security provides narratives of danger as the stimulus to collective action but is much less useful in proposing desirable futures” (Dalby 2002, p. 163).

Many scholars have attempted to define what security is and what it entails to be secure. With examples such as the above one but also “…security itself is a relative freedom from war, coupled with a relatively high expectation that defeat will not be a consequence of any war that should occur” or “…national security may be defined as the ability to withstand aggression from abroad” (Collins 2007, p. 3).

Although many scholars have different approaches to the concept of security there is common ground, it deals with threats to survival. Even if there is a common conception

that war and threats to use force is part of what security stands for it is not the end of the discussion. (Ibid., p. 2)

An absence of threats could be seen as equally important and the sub-discipline of International Relations, Security Studies deals with everything from pandemics to environmental degradation and terrorism the realistic approaches. What security studies have done since the end of the Cold War is to bring back assumptions along the lines of what it is to be secured and how that could or should be done. (Collins et al 2007, p. 2) We need to acknowledge security as a critical category for making sense of the world as we know it. But also in order to make it possible for performative political practices in which have major implications for how politics is understood and organised. (Stripple 2005, p. 46) In the same way Copenhagen School introduces the speech act and Barry Buzan describes how to look at security:

“...the more traditional objective threat analysis – which can be military, but it can also be environmental and societal, depending on what you want to designate as a threat and what you’re concerned about the security of; and then there’s the social side of it – what’s the process by which threats get constructed: who speaks it, who listens to it, how does something get put together and accepted as a threat.” (Buzan 2008, from interview)

It is problematic to define security, however as long as the conception of security is not bound to mere state activities it could have implications to environmental security and other items to be secured.

Since the notion of referent object of security has appeared and mentioned previously it is could be of interest to explain what is meant by it and what purpose the concept have with regards to environmental security.

4.1

Referent Object of Security

What referent object of security is standing for is what the primary object which is to be secured, e.g. the state in the realistic approach to international security. The reason for it to be used here is since it is a central thought in critical approaches to security, security studies in general and environmental security in particular. Traditionally the state has been what needs to be secured, i.e. the referent object, and it has been the idea that the securitising should be done by military means. (Collins et al 2007, p. 2)

The referent object does not need to be the state but since it has been traditionally a lot of criticism has been focused on that particular aspect of International Relations. With sub-fields such as Security studies and Critical Security Studies both focuses on this. In order to

explore such discussions it might be useful to explain what Critical Security Studies sets out to do.

The idea for Critical Security Studies is to question the referent object of security, acknowledging the states as important but more so finding a need for human beings to be secured and feel insecure by other actors than the state and military. Secondly to consider security as more than just military security, with discussions of what makes the referent insecure and how security could be achieved for any object state or non-state. Finally to change the way security is studied. (Ibid., p. 57-58)

Environmental Security has both broadened and deepened the agenda of security, with meanings that differs between people and can apply to an immense different referent objects that at times have limited links to the environment. The use of referent object is needed and to be pointed out that it is hard to discuss environmental security with the state as referent object. The concept of environmental security refers more to a sector of security, given the environment, rather than a referent object to be secured.

The referent object of security will become even more apparent when this thesis gets to the securitising aspect of the environment. However it is to be noted as important here as well, the reason for that is to acknowledge that the shift in referent object is part of the historical aspect of the concept. On the other hand by making way for other sources to be secured, possibilities to change them will become more likely.

4.2

Security Concept and the Environment

Something that constantly appears when reading about the topic of environmental security is the rethinking of security. That is moving away from a state-centric approach to International Relations through deepening and broadening the security agenda.

Stripple 2005 states that “...new thinking on security can be classified along the axes of

broadening and deepening“. (Stripple 2005, p. 44) With regards to broaden the agenda is

dealing with is what sort of threats there are, that are not limited to the military but rather deals with the likes of the economy, society, or the environment. Deepening refers to the previously mentioned referent object, which is rather having it focus on a range between the individual (human security) to entire systems (global security). What Stripple 2005 finds is that the environment has been treated both as a new type of threat and as something that needs to be secured. (Stripple 2005, p. 44)

In broadening the agenda of security the works of Homer-Dixon can be mentioned, and his work with linking environmental scarcity and conflict, something chapter 6 deals with in greater detail.

5

Different

approaches

to

the

Concept

of

Environmental Security

With the historic background of the environmental security in place, this chapter will outline some of the major interpretations of environmental security. Due to the ambiguity of words like environment and security many different meanings of environmental security have appeared. Therefore it is useful to explain through six key interpretations of environmental security something that will be explained in further detail after the table and throughout the thesis.

Figure: 1

Source: Collins et al 2007, p.189

The figure shows the name of the interpretation, the entity that is to be secured i.e. the referent object, the major source of risk, and the scale of concern.

When human activities impact the environment it could be denoted as ecological security. This emphasises at least in its ideal form that it is ecosystems and ecological processes that should be secured. That is, the threat to ecological security is human activity. According to Collins et al 2007, humans are only secured in the way that they are merely a part of the environment. The controversy to this interpretation is that it challenges the common security concept due to its demanding of reason for action to a concern of the environment as a whole. (Collins et al 2007, p. 189)

The second interpretation of environmental security is explained through common security. Meaning that the impacts of environmental problems to overshadow borders to a common, for example where the ozone depletion is a problem or the climate change. However the case here is not to say that the problems are common in the sense that ‘we’ are all equally responsible for them but rather that we are at equal risk from them. (Ibid.) The four remaining interpretations of environmental security will be accounted for in one way or another later in this thesis as they could easily be found more controversial and are

Name Entity to be secured Major source of risk Scale of concern Ecological security Natural environment Human activity Ecosystems Common security Nation State Environmental change Global/regional

Environmental violence Nation State War National

National security Nation State Environmental change National Greening defence Armed forces Green/peace groups Organizational Human security Individuals Environmental change Local

better if described in further detail. The reason is also due to the complexity in those interpretations. We begin by examine the human security approach.

5.1

Insecurity and Human Security

The concept of environmental security could be explained as referring to a sector of security, the environment. It is therefore possible to discuss environmental security of the people, human security. With an approach focusing more on sectors, the environment has in fact been identified as one of the seven sectors in the early definition of human security. (United Nations Development Program in 1994, where other sectors identified were economic, food, health, personal, community, and political security) (Collins et al 2007, p. 197) With environmental change identified as a human security issue, it should be explained as a way to understand the concept of environmental security. As we will discover later in this thesis the ways environmental change impact nation-states etc. are slightly ambiguous, the way it affect humans is more straightforward.

Without getting to far into the topic of insecurity it is of need to mention it. Like Collins et al defines insecurity, as “…the risk of something bad happening to a thing that is valued”. (Ibid, p. 424) Insecurity with regards to environmental problems or issues could easily be connected with such an approach. The risks that environmental change yields, directly effects what is valued perhaps life even rather than a thing.

”If the structure which determines the relations between states is objectively and inescapably anarchic, then insecurity is an environmental constant and the condition of peace must be the eternal vigilance of military autarky“. (McSweeney 1999, p. 16)

Since security can apply to so many different things valued, opposite to insecurity, and refer to a variety of risks. With that noted it is perhaps not surprising that the environment has earned its role as a referent object of security, with the environmental change we see around us as a security risk.

Where the concept of insecurity is in depth discussed is regarding the environmental change and its influence with regards to human security. People are environmentally insecure in all aspects in all sorts of ways and for different reasons. What could be said is that the determinants of environmental insecurity are according to Collins et al 2007: “…where people live and the nature of environmental changes in those places; how susceptible people are to damage caused by environmental changes; and people’s capacity to adapt to environmental changes”. (Collins et al 2007, p. 197)

When discussing environmental change it is important to note that the changes in themselves does not affect undermine human security per see. However, an understanding of human environmental insecurity needs a larger scale understanding, “…past and present

processes that create wealth in some places and poverty in others, and environmental change in some places and not in others”. (Ibid., p. 198)

An approach to environmental security that focuses on human security cannot avoid taking into account nation-states and their security policies. Even though human security focuses on the individual the ways to strengthen human security needs to be done on a higher level, which leads us to the work that securitisation could do. (Ibid.)

5.2

Securitisation and the Copenhagen School

The notion of securitisation is drawn from the Copenhagen School and authors like Buzan and Waever. The ‘school’ focus on giving more light to and widen the threats and referent objects of security. (Collins et al 2007) Furthermore it is common perception that the outstanding feature in the ‘Copenhagen School’ is the concept of securitisation. However, part from that feature that Buzan and Waever provide a “…rather middle-of-the-road…” analytically sound standpoints according to some critics. (Knudsen 2001, p. 358)

What is majorly differentiating the Copenhagen School from research prior to its peak around 1980 is that instead of security being concerned only with military, the case was rather that military security was included in a broader idea. That is military security was found to be one of five sectors, joined by environmental, economic, societal, and political security. (Collins et al, p. 159) This approach of security, with sectors, provided a better way to approach in the broadening process.

When the notion of securitisation was introduced it was groundbreaking and one of the most significant conceptual developments. Their main idea is to treat security as a speech-act, meaning “…a concrete action that is performed by its virtue of its being said”. (Collins et al 2007, p. 61) What is meant is that it is concerning actions that are performed entirely by being spoken, and therefore do not refer to things per see.

Figure: 2

Source: Collins et al 2007, p. 112

The reason to bring in the ‘Copenhagen School’ is not perhaps to explain environmental security, but to present a different approach to security. In more detail what they do is identify environment as one of their five sectors and also that environmental issues through a speech-act could be securitized as a specified security question.

As the above textbox suggests is how a security issue gets securitized and therefore explains the line of thought that the ‘Copenhagen School’ runs. An issue is non-politicized when it is not included in a public debate and to an extent ignored by the state. The issue becomes politicized when it’s managed within the ‘normal’ political system. It ends up at the spectra at the securitized end when the issue requires emergency actions beyond the state’s normality approaches. (Collins et al 2007, p. 111)

The broadening of the security agenda that ‘Copenhagen School’ does with clearly providing evidence for a new approach. In the case of environmental security, the referent object becomes “…the planetary attributes necessary to sustain civilization”. (Dalby 2002, p. 7)

5.3

Differences and similarities between Copenhagen School

and Human Security Approach

What is most notably different between the Copenhagen School and the approach of human security is that the latter has no real analytical utility. (Floyd 2007, p.45) However the more perhaps important is the similarity that they both help make a possibility for securing the environmental issues in a way that our world needs.

Securitisation spectrum

Non-Politicized Politicized Securitized

State ignoring issues Issues managed within Issue framed as a and issues not included the political system, security question in public debate part of public policy through an act of

“While the human security approach offers an alternative to the securitization approach, this is not the same as saying that human security can possibly, or indeed should, replace the securitization approach, or for that matter security analysis as a whole. Nor is this to say that security analysis can, or should, replace the human security approach. Rather, each is important in its own unique way: one contributing to our understanding of how security is practiced, the other – on occasion and if successful – to its practice.” (Floyd 2007, p.45)

Both approaches identify environment as a sector of security, something that helps broaden the understanding. But since human security has no analytical utility it lacks sufficient strength to make a difference. What the Copenhagen could do, without diminishing the importance of human security, is perhaps help form an analytical utility through the act of securitisation.

This chapter has introduced different approaches to the concept of environmental security. There are mainly six approaches as identified in figure 1 which presents the name of the interpretation, the entity that is to be secured, the major source of risk, and the scale of concern. Next chapter will treat the three remaining approaches and in more detail explore the impact of environmental change and degradation.

6

Environmental Change and its Impacts

This chapter outlines different fields where the security concept is linked with the environment in more ways than one. That is, how environmental change impacts different fields within the International arena.

The first one environmental change and violent conflict is something that is highly disputed but brings large scale case studies to the table. Secondly, how to link environmental change with national security something that is extremely problematic. Thirdly and finally the discussion of how armed forces in fact might be causing the environmental change will be presented.

All this is done in order to present interpretations where the entity to be secured, see figure 1 on p. 12, is the nation state as in section 6.1 and 6.2. These two chapters discuss different approaches to the environmental change and its impacts. Especially whether environmental degradation leads to violent conflict or not and therefore these two sections will help answer the second question of thesis (‘Does environmental scarcity and change cause conflict between countries?’).

Regarding the positioning of 6.3, since traditional studies link the securing of nation state with military support and therefore it is interesting to see how the military in fact could be the root to the problems and environmental degradation.

6.1

Environmental Degradation and Violent Conflict

According to Collins et al 2007 early writing on the connections between environmental change and violence borrowed heavily from realist international relations theory and focused largely on resource scarcity and conflict between states. (Collins et al 2007, p. 190) Yet several scholars have in more or less successfully attempts tried to show the relationships between environmental change and violent conflict.

As the concept of environmental security is such a complex concept several scholars have attempted to work around this by denoting the concept to newer interpretations. One author that has done this and has managed to establish a well known approach to the problem is Homer Dixon 1999. What this author and his Toronto school have done is instead of working with the complexity that is environmental security rather study and establish an approach named Environmental Scarcity.

Homer-Dixon describes how environmental scarcity would lead to violent conflict and presents a model for the relationship between the two.

Deudney

Source: Homer-Dixon 1999, p. 74

What Homer-Dixon finds is that preliminary research indicates that scarcity of renewable resources, what he refers to as environmental scarcity, can contribute to civil violence, and also insurgencies and ethnic clashes. In addition, even if environmental scarcity has been connected with violence in the past, in decades to come Homer-Dixon finds that such violence will most likely increase, perhaps due to scarcities of cropland and freshwater. (Homer-Dixon 1999)

“Scarcity’s role in such violence, however, is often obscure and indirect. It interacts with political, economic, and other factors to generate harsh social effects that in turn help produce violence. Analysts often interpret these social effects as the conflict’s principal causes, thus overlooking scarcity’s influence as an underlying stress.” (Ibid., p. 178)

The main focus here is that environmental scarcity is caused by degradation and depletion of renewable resources, see figures above, the increased demand for the resources at stake and their unequal distribution. As the figures above shows there are two kinds of interaction of particular importance, figure 3.1 “resource capture” and figure 3.2 “ecological marginalisation”.

“Resource capture occurs when the degradation and depletion of a renewable resource interacts with population growth to encourage powerful groups within a society to shift resource distribution in their favor. These groups tighten their grip on the increasingly scarce resource and use this control to boost their wealth and power. Resource capture intensifies scarcity for poorer and weaker groups in society.

Decrease in Quality and Quantity of renewable resources

Increased Environmental Scarcity

Population Growth

Unequal Resource Access Figure 3.1 Resource Capture

Decrease in Quality and Quantity of renewable resources

Increased Environmental Scarcity

Population Growth

Unequal Resource Access

Ecological marginalization occurs when unequal resource access combines with population growth to cause long-term migrations of people dependent on renewable resources for their livelihood.”

(Homer-Dixon 1999, p. 178)

What Homer-Dixon discusses and argues could easily be traced back to ideas that Malthus presented in the early 1800’s. His main argument is presented below.

“Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio. Subsistence increases only in an arithmetical ratio. A slight acquaintance with numbers will show the immensity of the first power in comparison of the second.

By that law of our nature which makes food necessary to the life of man, the effects of these two unequal powers must be kept equal.

This implies a strong and constantly operating check on population from the difficulty of subsistence. This difficulty must fall somewhere and must necessarily be severely felt by a large portion of mankind.”

(Malthus 2001, p. 11)

The similarities between Homer-Dixon and Malthus are that they focus on scarcity in the society and world which leads to inequality in one way or another.

Here also in a similar discussion Kaplan brings further aspects to the table. Kaplan (2000) finds environment as the cause of threats to national security and by doing so updates the Malthusian topic to a new and broader public.

Before moving on to common critique of ‘given’ connections between environmental problems/scarcities and conflict. It is interesting to see what hypothesis Homer-Dixon and his ‘Toronto-school’ tested and what their outcomes where. Hence next step here will be to introduce three hypotheses that they tested and account for some of the empirical evidence that was acquired. The three hypotheses are as follows:

 Hypothesis one: “Environmental scarcity causes simple-scarcity conflicts between states.”

 Hypothesis two: “Environmental scarcity causes large population movement, which in turn causes group-identity conflicts.”

 Hypothesis three: “Environmental scarcity simultaneously increases economic deprivation and disrupts key social institutions, which in turn causes “deprivation” conflicts such as civil strife and insurgency.”

Hypothesis one: “Environmental scarcity causes simple-scarcity conflicts between states.”

The first hypothesis comes with limited empirical support, since scarcity of renewable resources rarely cause wars between states. However Homer-Dixon claims it to be

intriguing since we have more and more come to see resource wars since World War II and onwards. However, it is important according to the author that there is a separation between renewable and renewable resources, since states have fought more over non-renewable than non-renewable resources. (Deudney & Matthew 1999, pp. 70-71)

Figure: 4

Source: Deudney & Matthew 1999, p. 79

Homer-Dixon finds that the second and third hypotheses are linked together through similarities in the process. Although population movement is at times caused by scarcity directly, it is more likely that the movement is caused from the increased poverty as a result of the scarcity. In the same way that state weakening increases the likelihood of both deprivation conflicts and group identity conflicts. As noted in the above figure. (Deudney & Matthew 1999, p. 78)

Hypothesis two: “Environmental scarcity causes large population movement, which in

turn causes group-identity conflicts.”

Second hypothesis finds more evidence to support it, substantial evidence to support this hypothesis. However there is a need for caution since there is what Homer-Dixon refers to as ‘contextual factors’ that are unique to each and every socio-ecological system. (Ibid., p. 71) That is environmental scarcity causes large population movements, which in turn causes group-identity conflicts in more cases than where this is not a fact.

Sources of environmental scarcity Social Effects

Decrease in quality and Migration, Ethnic conflicts quantity of renewable resources expulsion

Increased

Population growth environmental Weakened states Coups d’etat scarcity

Unequal resource Decreased economic

Access productivity Deprivation conflicts

Hypothesis three: “Environmental scarcity simultaneously increases economic

deprivation and disrupts key social institutions, which in turn causes “deprivation” conflicts such as civil strife and insurgency.”

Again the last hypothesis is only partially supported by empirical evidence. Therefore it is said that environmental scarcity does produce economic deprivation and that this in turn causes civil strife, yet it is found that more research is needed. (Ibid., p. 73)

In order to sum up figure 2:

“Decreases in the quality and quantity of renewable resources, population growth, and unequal resource access act singly or in various combinations to increase the scarcity for certain groups of cropland, water, forests, and fish. This can reduce economic productivity, both for the local groups experiencing the scarcity and the larger regional and national economies. The affected people may migrate or be expelled to new lands. Migrating groups often trigger ethnic conflicts when they move to new areas, while decreases in wealth can cause deprivation conflicts, such as insurgency and rural rebellion. The migrations and productivity losses may eventually weaken the state in developing countries, which in turn decreases central control over ethnic rivalries and increases opportunities for insurgents and elites challenging the state authority.” (Deudney & Matthew 1999, p. 79)

There are critiques to this way of reasoning with scarcity more or less leading to violent conflict. One of these critics Deudney (1999) will get to provide his arguments in the next section.

6.2

Environmental Change and National Security

Deudney (1999) makes three claims to prove why his scepticism towards authors like Homer-Dixon holds. First he finds it to be analytically misleading to find environmental degradation as a national security threat. This due to that the traditional focus of national security, that is the interstate violence, has little in common with neither environmental problems nor solutions. Secondly, efforts to exploit the emotive power of nationalism to help mobilise environmental awareness and action may in fact be counteractive and in the process undermine globalist political sensibility. Finally, environmental degradation is according to Deudney not likely to cause interstate wars. (Deudney & Matthew 1999, p. 190) Note here that Deudney is not the only critic of Homer-Dixon’s approach.

In order to conclude what Duedney argues, there seems to be some basis for considering environmental problems as national security. That is due to that the problem is heavily disputed and dependent on interpretation, of what national security is and how national security can be achieved. (Collins et al 2007, p. 194)

Kaplan is under the impression that the language of wars with nature is not to be thought of as new. However to link military metaphors of nature as a hostile force with geopolitical threats to national security would lead to a better understanding of what is to be solved. (Dalby 2002, p. 27)

In Kaplan’s words,

“It is time to understand “the environment” for what it is: the national-security issue of the early twenty-first century. The political and strategic impact of surging populations, spreading disease, deforestation and soil erosion, water depletion, air pollution, land, possibly, rising sea levels in critical, overcrowded regions like the Nile Delta and Bangladesh - developments that will prompt mass migrations and, in turn, incite group conflicts - will be the core foreign-policy challenge from which most others will ultimately emanate, arousing the public and uniting assorted interests left over from the Cold War.” (Kaplan 2000, p.20)

What Kaplan finds is that the environment will in part provide the new threats to security ‘our’ world and nation state will face in a post-Cold War era, not because we can but because we need to. (Kaplan 2000)

Furthermore Kaplan finds that the notions Homer-Dixon brings to the table are to be taken very seriously, and that it possibly could turn out to be the framework of the future policy. (Dalby 2002, p. 29) The reason Kaplan finds Homer-Dixon to be so well trusted is that he finds democracy to be problematic, whilst scarcity to be more certain. (Kaplan 2000, p. 21)

Dalby also takes the natural environment seriously however he questions the ability of traditional international relations to deal with these issues. (Stripple 2005, p. 47) Hence in a similar approach as Collins (et al 2007) provides, it becomes difficult for existing theories of national security to take the environment into consideration. Regardless of the connections between environmental change and conflict between states, the changes can be said to undermine national security. (Collins et al 2007, p.192)

There can also be found connections between economic development and environmental issues. That is if economic development can be ecologically unsustainable than in similar manners can national security be equally unsustainable. (Ibid., p. 193) Furthermore along these lines arguments from Sen (1999) provides arguments such as environmental change can undermine human development which is important for economic growth. Also, “For example, more informed and less marginalized public discussion of environmental issues may not only be good for the environment; it could also be important to the health and functioning of the democratic system itself.” (Sen 1999, p. 175)

This is not something all would agree upon and this will be further interpreted in the analysis but as Ackerman suggests that democracy would be a driving political ideology in

order to attain sustainable security. Possibly even in due course sustainable peace. (Ackerman 2008, p. 87)

Ackerman finds that,

“International organizations will be the framework and foundation for efforts to institutionalize equitable reconciliation among people and between people and nature. Specifically, free trade and the market represent the economic vehicles used to transform, improve, and diffuse policies and programs required for long-term maintenance of natural and human-made capital. Importantly, the equitable, effective, and sustainable application of the Kantian principles represent the best hope for countering global climate change and ensuring sustainable security. In this “virtuous circle” all of the actors, concepts, and processes align, preserving the freedom, economic well-being, progress, and equity of natural ecosystems and human civilization, using sustainable security as the overarching principle.”(Ibid.)

Figure: 5

Source: Ackerman 2008, p. 88

That is described in the figure, and implies that sustain-able security is created by the inter-actions of the three green pillars.

Implying that the global forces of democracy must unite to counter the climate changes we see around us. That could be done by combining and put emphasis on how the confidence and cooperation generates powers of free and equal elections, economic interdependence, and international organisations. (Ackerman 2008, p. 88)

Hence the case that the impact environmental change has on the national and international security is highly disputed. The disputes could be found ranging from diminishing the national security to calls for a move towards higher unified actions among the international society.

It feels important to claim that it is difficult in the world we live in today to believe that national security is about fighting forces and such. The relationship between environment and security is to be accepted to have impact regardless of what is of concern.

6.3

Armed Forces and the Environment

This section deals with how armed forces affect and cause environmental problems which could lead to instability and insecurity. This too is a way to interpret environmental security, as seen in figure 1.

Many have argued that armed forces are in fact involved in the problems that the environment faces, particularly in conflict and it could be argued that war causes environmental damage. (Collins et al. 2007, p. 196)

For one, just think of all the landmines that are out there in the war torn parts of the world, making the soil unusable.

Critics have argued that security agents especially the military play a much larger role in environmental damage in many parts of the world. With notions such as environmental stress in itself could be described as both a cause but also an effect of military conflict. But also that conflict makes resources scarcer and enhances the competition for them. (Dalby 2002, pp. 41-42)

Mentioned under this heading could also the ancient war tactics of ‘scorched earth’ be presented as a description of how armed forces in fact even uses the environment as a weapon. What scorched earth refers to is a military tactic which basically sets out to destroy anything of use to the enemy in conflict. The tactic in part could be referring to burned down villages and fields, crops and other consumption commodities to name a few.

In military terms scorched earth are destructive on more than one account, human impact and economically wasteful. However primarily it is highly environmentally destructive. (Hulme 2004, p. 14) What Hulme finds is also that it is not uncommon that unnecessary environmental destruction is a military tactic. (Ibid., p. 4)

Along these lines of thought is the notion that warfare almost always results in environmental degradation. For example the use of nuclear weapons in Japan, defoliants in Vietnam, and the destruction of crops in Eritrea (with similarities to the scorched earth tactics mentioned above) all provide evidence that war directly impact the environment.

Important to mention is that these impacts last well beyond the end of the fighting and conflict. (Collins et al 2007, p. 195)

6.4

Summary

This chapter have been presenting and dealing with different aspects of environmental change and its impacts. Through authors like Homer-Dixon explore the environmental degradation and violent conflict. He finds that environmental scarcity would lead to conflict between states. Next we discuss the matter regarding the national security with authors like Deudney who are highly sceptical of findings like that and claims that environmental degradation is not likely to cause interstate wars.

The ending section of this chapter presents the impacts of armed forces. Especially regarding war tactics like scorched earth but equally devastating is the use of nuclear arms, impacting our earth long after the conflict.

7

Analysis

As with any power word known to man for example love, hate, or even security is that they are emotionally biased. The meanings of them are determined by who is defining them and what their emotional connection is to the word. Therefore it will always be difficult to find a fully accepted meaning.

What the method from chapter 2 suggest is done in order to carry out a conceptual investigation study is to track down and research what have been written about the concept, which have been done previously.

Next step is to sort the different conceptual definitions, and attempt to find the core of the concept hence also in what way the definitions differ amongst the explanations. After that the objective is to test in part whether one or more definitions are consistent and if there is a possibility to operational and if it is testable. Finally what the method suggests is that if possible to determine a “best” definition of the concept. (Esaiasson et al 2005, p. 34-35) The difference in approaches toward the concept of environmental security with the soundest arguments is regarding what environmental change in fact impacts. That is discussions regarding environmental scarcity and national security in particular. Before dealing with those issues I would like to bring another aspect to the table, whether to treat environmental security as environment or security?

The reason for this is that it is brought up more than once in various literatures, however very prominent in Collins et al 2007. In the latter it becomes clear that the securitising has risen to profile of environmental issues among foreign and security policy makers and agencies, hence now we can find environmental changes to be considered as security issues. These changes could be seen as related to a broadening of the issue of security however little has been done in terms of changes in policies and actions regarding the referent object of environmental security etc. (Collins et al 2007, p. 199)

It is difficult at times to separate between the two, environment and security, since one does not exclude the other and so forth. That is, it is not uncommon to find environmental problems to have become militarised even if some find the latter to be a cause of the former, and therefore not a solution. Even a scenario is that environmental security has done little to at all solve environmental problems. (Ibid.)

The Copenhagen School and the human security approach share a notion that the referent object of security ought to be different from the state-centric approaches previously influential. The human security finds the insecurity of the individuals in the world at risk from environmental change on the local scale of concern, whilst the Copenhagen School focuses more on the act of securitisation through the speech-act. What is most notably

different between the Copenhagen School and the approach of human security is that the latter has no real analytical utility. (Floyd 2007, p.45)

What the Copenhagen School does is to acknowledge the environmental sphere as ‘constant’ sector, out of five, that needs to be recognised. Through the securitising act the environmental issue can be securitised, that is framed as a security question through that act. (Collins et al 2007, p. 112) Hence, some find what the Copenhagen School have started a possible way to ‘secure’ the environment.

On the other hand there is a question of whether the environment should be handled in security terms at all, here we find different answers; yes, Dalby 2002; no, Duedney 1999. Which leads us to other approaches to the concept of environmental security and that is dealing with the environmental changes and the impacts that they have.

The environmental degradation and violent conflict brings forth the work of Homer-Dixon. What Homer-Dixon finds does is instead working with the complexity that is environmental security instead study and to establish an approach named Environmental Scarcity. The conclusion he reaches is that environmental scarcity can contribute to violent conflict. (Deudney 1999, p.85)

He proves his point by explaining that the decreases in the quantity and quality of renewable resources increases the environmental scarcity. That in turn could reduce economic productivity, which might make the affected people to migrate to new lands. These migrating groups would possibly trigger ethnic conflict when moving to new areas, while decreases in wealth might cause deprivation conflicts. This migration and productivity losses could weaken the state in developing countries, which could decrease central control over ethnic rivalries and increases opportunities for insurgents and elites challenging the state authority. (Deudney & Matthew 1999, p. 79) Hence what Homer-Dixon presumably would voice is a need for the environment to be handled in security terms, in the same way that Dalby does. The latter, Dalby 2002, claims that in order “To be effective they need to interpellate existing social identities and articulate them to other discourses in circulation and to commonsense geopolitical reasoning”. (Dalby 2002, p. 164) Deudney on the other hand disagrees with this that the environment should be handled in security terms. He argues that mixing environment with security betrays the core of the environmental movement. He finds that environmental degradation is not a threat to national security; rather that environmentalism is a threat to national security and its institutions. Also he claims that it is analytically misleading to characterise environmental degradation as a threat to national security, due to that “...the traditional focus of national security has little in common with either environmental problems or solutions”. (Deudney 1999, p. 138) Finally he doubts that environmental degradation will be a significant cause of interstate wars. (Ibid.)

Before the attempt to define a ‘best’ concept the discussion of the armed forces and the environmental security should be brought up. The main reason to mention this is because as mentioned previously in this analysis it is difficult to separate between the environment