Environmental security: threats, policies, and mitigation

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 Risk and Impact of Security

Levy (1995:50) makes a historical study of the ozone problem, and how it has been managed in terms of security. In this, the author suggests that the ozone problem was mitigated with significant effect precisely because it was not labeled as a security problem. Indeed, the high costs of the mitigation measures might have been prohibitive had they been required from the security budget. In terms of security then, the fact that the ozone problem was seen as a separate matter altogether provided both for speed and funding to mitigate the problem more effectively than might otherwise have been the case. The author therefore appears to suggest that the holistic approach poses a risk of costly time delays for approval that might prove too little too late for any true difference to be possible.

Brown (2005) asserts that the political involvement of security in natural resource issues holds the risk of conflict and insecurity. Indeed, competition relates to power and control issues arise where resources are abundant, while competition for resources occur where these are scarce. Brown, like Levy, asserts that there is little question that security and environmental issues are integrated. The risk lies in whether security is specifically integrated in mitigation measures, and the degree to which this is done.

It has been mentioned above that the environment directly affects human survival and well-being. Brown further addresses the interrelation between the environment and security be asserting that they are interdependent: in other words, the environment can cause insecurity, while insecurity can impact the environment negatively as well. Specifically, refugees driven from their environment by political insecurity can place negative strain on their new environment, while war could result over a lack of resources.

It has also been mentioned above that environmental insecurity can provide a valuable resource for targeted and effective change. Dialogue and effective communication could for example lead to a greater mutual understanding among all who are dependent upon a particular environment or resource. In this way, humanity could learn that it is interpersonal similarities rather than differences that are important to secure the survival of the species rather than any specific nation.

Brown also addresses the impact of both the developed and developing world on the environment. While the developing world is often seen as the greatest culprit in the lack of environmental sustainability, Brown emphasizes that no small amount of responsibility should be at the threshold of the developed world. Indeed, the widely divergent countries at both sides of the economic fence need to take responsibility for their unsustainable habits. Indeed, this may be even more so for the more prosperous countries, as they have greater economic power to mitigate their impact on the environment. Indeed, these countries also have the power to assist poorer countries in terms of both education and mitigation regarding the environment. Instead, however, Brown notes that the unsustainable habits of many rich countries lie at the root environment-related conflict. At the same time, it should also be recognized that these factors do not cause conflict in isolation. Instead, it is a confluence of environmental and political factors that may be seen as the cause of such conflicts. Hence, security should also bee seen as an integrated phenomenon, involving not only the environment, but many other related political and economic factors.

In mitigating these problems, Brown (2005:5) suggests environmental programming as a contributing factor towards peace. Because of the political uncertainty regarding environmental control, it is suggested that local governments take control of programs to mitigate specific and localized environmental programs, which can then contribute to the global good. Indeed, resources managed in this way can in turn be integrated into global programs to coordinate the effort towards global sustainable development.

According to Brown, Hammill & McLeman (2007: 1142), the increased attention on security and its relation to politics and environmental issues is inevitable as the new millennium progresses. Indeed, in the wake of the ozone issue, global environmental issues and security have incrementally increased in importance. Specific issues of security that the authors mention include the possibility of forced migration and conflict as a result of increased pressure on natural resources and their allocation. These were possibilities projected during the beginning of the decade, when the commission of two scenario analysts to investigate the effects of a possible abrupt climate change gave rise to mild media panic.

On the positive side, however, it also triggered greater attention to the link between security issues and the environment, and the ways in which these could be handled in the future. Indeed, specific measures have been taken by the British government as well as the rest of Europe to address security concerns as a result of climate change. Significantly, African leaders have also begun to take the matter seriously. In terms of security and conflict, it is furthermore significant that these leaders are lashing out against the developing world for its unsustainable gas emissions and other forms of pollution resulting in the possibility of abrupt climate changes.

The hostile feelings cultivated in this way is detrimental to finding solutions for the future, and should be mitigated via dialogue and a cultivation of mutual understanding and support.

Some political leaders have even given environmental problems precedence over terrorism in threatening international security. Indeed, the anger of African leaders and the attitude of developed nations could result in conflict if not managed correctly. As seen above, the literature often encourages the view that developing nations are the greatest culprits in causing environmental unsustainability, while developed nations are indeed as, or even more irresponsible than their poorer counterparts in destroying the planet and its resources. This in itself can result in a conflict situation that will do little to address the root of the problem.

Instead of flinging accusations, it might be advisable to, as mentioned above, encourage solution-focused conversation. An overly emotional reactive paradigm towards environmental issues might indeed trigger a greater security threat than terrorism, as projected. Once again, this is not related solely to the environment, but to a confluence of various integrated political and economic factors.

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.