Environmental security, resource scarcity, and conflict prevention in Europe

Environmental Security

The environment and its preservation for future generations has become one of the most important current issues not only in general society, but also in the political arena. As such, the issue has enjoyed attention from the highest and most powerful entities. It is no longer a question of whether to pay political attention to the environment; it has become compulsory if the human race is to survive. The question is rather on which platform to focus the most energy in terms of the environment. A large amount of attention has been given to the economic implications of the various environmental crises humanity faces today. Recently, attention has begun to also focus upon the implications of environmental concerns for security. The question of whether this could be the best way of handling environmental risk in Europe, could be countered by considering whether any one focus is ever the "best" way. Is it not better to find a combination of various ways in which to handle the risks? Below the focus on the security issue is considered, how this could impact the environment, and whether the environment can benefit from combining security with other issues such as economics.

The Security Issue

In his writing, Hugh Dyer (2002), appears to be somewhat skeptical of placing the environment on the security agenda. Indeed, he hypothesizes that this might be to stretch the meaning of security beyond what is useful in terms of mitigating environmental problems. The reason for this is that issues of security are traditionally handled by the military, while environmental problems are generally addressed by environmental scientists. Securing environmental resources however entail more than developing scientific methods to secure the future of the environment. Furthermore, according to a number of authors, the environment does indeed relate to the security issue in the global arena in a variety of integrated ways. According to Dyer (2002: 441), the difficulty lies not so much in whether environmentalism has become a security issue, but rather in precisely what form security measures in such a case should take.

Being the source of survival or indeed of economic prosperity, the scarcity of natural resources has the potential to result in violent conflict. The most obvious need for the security paradigm is therefore in peacekeeping in environments where resources are scarce and need to be rationed. Enforcement is also an important area of environmental security. Where rationing and other legislation is in place, enforcement is necessary to ensure that legislation is implemented and followed, particularly by businesses that use the majority of natural resources in an area. These are important roles that the military could fulfill besides its wartime duties.

Dabelko et al. (2) also make the point that environmental change and scarcity could lead to conflict and instability both on the local and international scale. They furthermore hold that this conflict could increase with the increasing degradation and scarcity of resources. In addition to peacekeeping duties, the authors also recognize the capacity of the military to use force if necessary to enforce anti-pollution measures, particularly in the business arena.

Dyer (2002:445) places emphasis on the danger of adding the environment to the security agenda in the form of political power struggles that will ultimately exacerbate rather than mitigate the threat of environmental degradation. In this regard, Dyer notes that there should be an appropriate distance between the issue of environmental security, and the traditional security agenda implemented by the state. The problem lies in the fact that such distance is not accomplished in a sufficiently distinguished way to optimize its effect in favor of the environment rather than in favor of specific political entities. In this way, politicizing environmental degradation by means of the security agenda places the issue at risk. The problem of the environment then runs the risk of being buried, as it were, under the struggle for political power in the public eye rather than being highlighted in terms of solutions.

In this vein, Dyer notes that the root of the problem lies in specifying the threats and the resources that need to be secured. The type of security implemented needs to be specified very clearly. Firstly, environmental degradation is a threat to current and future life on earth, and particularly human life. Secondly, this type of threat is nonmilitary at its core. Finally, traditional security threats to date have been military and limited in terms of geography. Environmental security occurs on a global scale, affecting all human beings. Indeed, it is the one security issue that could connect the different nations around the world more than any political issue in history.

Dabelko et al. (1) substantiates Dyer's assertion that the military's role is in need of revision from its primarily war- and disaster-related function, particularly after the Cold War. In addition, the authors promote a focus on prevention in terms not only of conflict, but also in terms of the environment. As such, the service of the military could be enlisted in order to not only identify areas of environmental problems, but also ways in which these could be mitigated preventatively. The authors name examples such as the soil fertility in Rwanda, trees in Ethiopia and terrace slopes in Honduras as examples of possible mitigating investments in the environment rather than deploying massive and expensive forces in order to mitigate environmental disasters. In combining this with the security issue, the authors suggest that the military and security budget no longer needed for securing national frontiers be invested in sustainable environmental development.

Another important point relates to the possible constructive force of environmental conflict, as this identifies areas of important political and other change. Specifically, Dabelko et al. (5) mention institutional change and capacity building in order to handle the challenges posed by the environment. Indeed, the increasing destructive force of weaponry today encourages the use of non-violent measures to enforce environmental responsibility. In this way, institutions are not only forced to adapt to the environmental challenges today, but also to do so in a peaceful manner. In this way, poverty can be reduced even while the state and civil society are strengthened. The authors therefore provide a hopeful note for the combination of the environment and security issues in mitigating the problems faced by humanity today.

In order to do this effectively, however, Dyer's note regarding specificity needs to be implemented. The exact nature of security and how this relates to environmental sustainability and development should be clearly delineated in order to ensure both short-term and long-term success. This is already done, as Dabelko et al. (5) note, by using security assets for the purpose of furthering environmental issues.

On the topic of specifying environmental issues and their relation to the military, specific divisions of the military are being used for the purpose of furthering environmental protection. Environmental data are for example collected for the purpose of studying and specifying the issues to target, as well as to further initiatives such as reforestation. Furthermore, the authors note that information and technology are shared for the purpose of cooperating cleanup efforts and develop response mechanisms to crises and conflicts that result from environmental issues. In this way, the military plays an important role in providing a security basis for furthering environmental sustainability.

Holistic Sustainability and Security

Dabelko et al. (7) mention development as an important issue that relates to both the environment and security. As a matter of necessity, forces of political power have come to recognize that a holistic view of development was essential if the future survival of humanity were to be secured. Policy objectives are therefore to recognize the linkages among the environment, conflict and security. It is no longer possible to see any of these issues in isolation if sustainable development is to be maintained. Indeed, the authors hold that political powers may benefit from recognizing the need for a holistic approach towards the environment and its integration with security and other issues.

According to Marc a. Levy (1995: 35), the link between the environment and security is not so much a matter of debate as it is a discussion of an already recognized issue. As such, the focus is rather on the specific nature of the links than on whether they exist. Indeed, Levy asserts that environmental degradation constitutes a physical threat to a country's citizens, as it results in the loss of human life and/or well-being. While the author focuses specifically on the United States, the global applicability of the issues is perhaps indicative of their holistic nature.

The Economy

It has been mentioned earlier that the environment is not only a security issue, but also an economic one. In both paradigms, the environment is also a political issue, as both scarce and abundant resources might result in political and power conflicts. An abundance of oil in one country can for example result in this country's control of worldwide oil and gas prices. Brown, Hammill & McLeman (2007) particularly mention the example of diamonds, whose abundance resulted in control conflicts.

In addition to conversation, planning and environmental programming, the authors suggest worldwide adaptation (2007: 1149) as a strategy to mitigate the economic and other implications of climate change. Specifically, changes need to occur in processes, perceptions, practices and functions, to be implemented at the institutional level and communicated throughout the globe towards the individual level. In terms of the economy, the costs of such implementations are significant. However, if measured against the long-term effects, these are far less than the cost of increasing mitigating measures and political conflicts.

Conclusion

In order to mitigate the impending and escalating environmental disasters humanity faces, it is vital to recognize the fundamental integration of the environment with political and economic issues. It is impossible to separate the environment, politics and security in the current climate. Whereas the ozone problem was managed successfully without involving security issues and without making it a security concern in itself, this is simply not possible any longer.

The environment necessarily involves politics and security. More than ever before, political leaders are becoming aware of the importance of the environment. As such, political leaders have a variety of motives for involving themselves in environmental concerns. One of the most common is power in the public eye. Indeed, the environment has to a great extent replaced "kissing babies" as a means of winning public favor in elections. Inherently, the danger of such an approach towards the environment lies in its fundamental insincerity. The greatest danger is in promising change and not effecting any. The danger has become far greater than it has been in the past: not effecting promised environmental change can result in the end of the human race.

To conclude, it has been mentioned above that environmental issues can no longer be separated from politics, security, or the economy. It has become essential to follow an integrated approach both in investigating and mitigating the most pressing issues. Rather than pointing fingers, it has become important to cooperate on a global level. As such, the conclusions from the above information can be summarized in two main points: integration in terms of the issues, and cooperation in terms of various sectors of society on a global scale.

In terms of the first, environmental issues have become security issues. Whether this is so can no longer be debated. However, it is equally impossible to say whether the security or economic issues should enjoy greater precedence. These are equally integrated with the environmental issue. A healthy environment means a healthy economy, which results in greater security. The environment should therefore be seen in the light of both security and the economy; with all available resources directed towards sustainability. Security should therefore be placed on the environment agenda, rather than perhaps the other way around. All related issues should enjoy equal attention to attain optimal success in ensuring sustainability.

In order to do this, political leaders, both in the EU and worldwide, need to recognize that the environment is not an issue that can be considered on the local scale only. Each particular government should take its own responsibility for climate change mitigation, while help should be offered where possible and where it is needed most. It is vital that these issues be discussed in the spirit of cooperation and ensuring security and survival for all on an equal level.

Human beings need their environment to continue living and to ensure the survival of their offspring and their future. As such, it is not yet too late to make a difference if action is taken right away.

Sources

Bretherton, C. & Vogler, J., the European Union as a Global Actor (Routledge, 1999), Chapter 3.

Dalby, S. Security, Modernity, Ecology: The Dilemmas of Post-Cold War Security Discourse Alternatives, 17:1 (1992), pp.95-134.

Dannreuther, Roland (ed.) European Union Foreign and Security Policy (Routledge, 2004) Chapter 11

Deudney, D. The case against linking environmental degradation and national security, Millennium, 19:3 (1990), pp.461-76.

Dyer, H. Environmental security and international relations: the case for enclosure Review of International Studies, 27:3 (2001), pp.441-450.

Greene, O. Environmental Issues in Baylis, J. & Smith, S. (eds), the Globalization of World Politics (OUP, 2nd edn, 2001), pp.387-414.

Hedenskog, J., Konnander, V., Nygren, B., Oldberg, I. And Pursiainen, C. Russia as a Great Power: Dimensions of Security Under Putin (Routledge, 2005). Chapter 12

Homer-Dixon, T. On the Threshold: Environmental Changes as Causes of Acute Conflict International Security, 16:2 (1991), 76-116.

Hough, P. Understanding Global Security (Routledge, 2004) Chapter 6

Hurrell, a. International Political Theory and the Global Environment in Booth, K. & Smith, S. (eds), International Relations Theory Today (Polity, 1995), pp.129-53.

Kaplan, R. The Coming Anarchy. The Atlantic Monthly, February 1994. http://dieoff.org/page67.htm

Levy, M. Is the Environment a National Security Issue? International Security 20:2 (1995): 35-62.

Lightfoot, S and J. Burchell. The European Union and the World Summit on Sustainable Development: Normative Power Europe in Action? Journal of Common Market Studies, 43:1(2005), 75-95.

Environmental Security in E.A. Page and J. Proops (eds.) Environmental Thought (Edward Elgar, 2003) Chapter 9.

Patterson, M. Green Politics in Burchill, S et al. Theories of International Relations (Macmillan, 1996), pp.252-74.

Patterson, M. Interpreting trends in global environmental governance, International Affairs, 75:4 (1999), pp.793-802.

Sawhill, S. Cleaning-up the Arctic's Cold War Legacy: Nuclear Waste and Arctic Military Environmental Cooperation and Conflict 35:1 (2000) pp. 5-36

Sheehan, Michael International Security: An Analytical Survey (Lynne Rienner, 2005) Chapter 7

Shue, H. Global Environment and International Inequality International Affairs 75:3 (1999), pp. 531-45.

Special Issue of International Affairs on the Climate Change Debate 6 essays, 77:2 (2001), pp.251-345.