Millennium
Project home page
4.1 Issues about Defining Environmental Security
Most respondents welcomed the opportunity to define environmental security and thought it was the next step toward better policy. However, there were some opposing views that are shared below in no particular order. They are numbered for easy reference.
Comment 1: The causes, manifestations, consequences, etc. of environmental insecurity are so diverse as to defy useful encapsulation in one pithy definition. Any definition that attempts this risks being too generalized (or perhaps too technical/obtuse) to satisfactorily serve its intended audience. It may be better to instead separately focus on the components of environmental security - food security, water security, security from infectious disease, security from exposure to hazardous waste, etc. - an approach already well under way.
Staff comment - A well put issue. Both approaches could be integrated, a concise definition with a good commentary explaining it.
Comment 2: Environmental security (or insecurity) manifests itself
in individual lives, households, communities, regions, nation-states, globally
("communities" here includes those as traditionally defined AND others
less often described as such - women, ethnic groups, etc.). Environmental
security at the higher levels should be viewed as rooted in security at
the lower ones. An environmentally secure state, if assessed by macro-level/aggregate
indicators (qualitative or quantitative) is not likely to also be one where
environmental security is enjoyed at all sub-national levels. But the converse
is more likely, that is, where environmental security is enjoyed at all
sub-national levels, the nation-state may be more likely to itself be environmentally
secure.
Attempts to identify water secure nations, for example, have fallen
into a trap by using aggregate per capita measures without recognizing
seasonal fluctuations, regional disparities, rural-urban differences, etc.
The point here is to suggest that definition of environmental security
should focus on sub-national as well as national and global levels. Many
of the proposed definitions do not draw adequate attention to sub-national
concerns. They seem written more for the use of those interested in national/international
security. The foundation of this security is likely to be shaky in the
absence of security down to the individual/household level. Insurgencies
taking root in disenfranchised, environmentally insecure (often rural)
communities may be testimony to this.
Staff comment - a very good example of comments emphasizing different
dimensions of environ-mental security - spatial regionally, geographically
and socially - politically, administratively(such as national, supra-
or sub-nationally), social group related (such as community, households,
etc.) and temporary.
Comment 3: Many scholars and practitioners question the operational
utility and analytical appropriateness of linking environmental issues
with security, raising arguments along the following lines: (1) threats
to well-being are fundamentally different from military threats; (2) overly
broad definitions of security render the term useless; (3) environmental
security is merely another tactic used by developed countries to impose
their values on developing countries and infringe upon their sovereignty;
(4) there is a fundamental mismatch between the means required for sustainable
development--marked by transparency, cooperation and public participation--and
the conflict orientation of security institutions; (5) environmental security
rhetoric encourages thinking that could lead nations to undertake military
intervention in the name of protecting "global" resources; (6) empirical
findings that environmental scarcities contribute to violent conflicts
are questionable, as environmental factors are at best tangentially related
to conflict and in any case are overshadowed by more important socio-political
and economic variables. (Written for the forthcoming Routledge Encyclopedia
of International Political Economy by R.J.B. Jones, Ed., University of
Reading, UK)
Staff comment - the above comments are extremely relevant in environmental
security considerations. Seeking indicators of environmental security
could be a useful endeavor. One may recall that the notion of 'sustainable
development' was similarly under attack because of the lack of its operation
ability.
Comment 4: I think all of the proposed definitions for environmental
security are equally well-constructed and encompass many different conceptions.
But I think trying to find a common definition for the term is a wild goose
chase (only small subsets of the diverse group of actors interested in
the myriad topics associated with "environmental security" would ever be
able to agree on a definition at any given time)....the debate over the
meaning of 'security' [I feel the same way about environmental security]
...stems from the struggle to create a way of understanding a world that
lacks any one great overarching unifying threat. Some of the efforts to
redefine security appear to throw the security label at everything in hopes
that the word alone will create a conceptual framework through which a
confusing world can be understood. This has had positive effects, bringing
together intellectual communities across disciplinary boundaries. But a
label does not a framework create....It is not clear that much is gained
by continuing to debate what to include under the rubric of "security."
Too much disagreement exists about whose security matters, about how the
various new "threats" interact, and about where policy interventions could
be most effective. These disagreements will not readily resolve themselves.
Addressing them directly might prove a more fruitful avenue than debating
how to label the category. In other words, I really dislike the term "environmental
security" because it cannot have one definition!
Staff comment - a thoughtful remark responded to earlier above.
Comment 5: I think that a number of the definitions would suit a conventional definition of environmental security, but I have always resisted these definitions, because I do not believe the way the subject is currently discussed comes close to the core of environmental security as a concept that would embrace the current situation or the human response to the situation that ought to be reflected in the term. The term (as is well known) comes out of a mixture of language used by the military and more recently by traditional environmental groups and social thinkers. And, as a subject, it is cast very powerfully in managerial terms. While this is useful in predictable ways, the term is not being used deeply enough.
I think it is important to provide a space for thinking about environmental security in a much more anthropological, personal, or (to use the jargon) phenomenological sense. This is certainly what is happening in some European quarters. If we define environmental security as "how people assume or expect stability in the world around them," then the main threats that we now face are in some sense threats to the fundamental fabric of life. These threats undermine a range of hitherto assumed background environments, which were so fundamental no one ever assumed they could be threatened. These include, for example, the sky, rain, the rhythm of the seasons, and so on. A colleague of mine refers to the loss of species as similar to the feeling one gets when one goes down a set of basement steps and one step is missing. There is a sense that something is falling out of one's life that was an anchor -- predictable, and part of one's self-identity.
Perhaps a more useful example or metaphor is the idea of the environment as embodying the physical memory of the earth, and we are witnessing a kind of Alzheimer's or worse. We are losing cherished parts of our memory, and it undermines our environmental security; just as an aging person panics when they can no longer remember certain basic tasks. The real frontier for environmental security concerns is rapidly becoming the edge of the human body, because it seems to be a final and yet fragile borderland between ourselves and the outside world. The threat from biological weapons (see this week's New Yorker on the latest panic) and the intensification of genetic experimentation are creating intense anxiety. The notion that there was a defensible border between some supposed "environment" and the "self" is being assaulted. Where do I end (my identity, my area of semi-control)? This helps explain the current obsessions with immune systems, the body, the Internet, boundaries and borders. The very notion of an "environment" is now insecure.
In this kind of an environment it is not clear how to answer the last
half of your questionnaire. Traditional environmental groups have not been
very good at translating their concern for the natural environment to the
new realm of environmental insecurity -- even though they have been among
the earliest to point to the health threats of endocrine disruptors, etc.
The increasing connection between the information assessing agendas of
the scientific community and the various forces driving towards globalization
has not been remotely addressed by anyone.
Turning everything into information as a preliminary step before turning
it into a commodity (including the environment, traditional knowledge,
and personal genetic codes) is the greatest threat to environmental security
I know of, since when everything can be denominated in one currency, then
intrinsic identity disappears, you are definable in terms of something
else -- which is the heart of the current anxiety and insecurity manifesting
itself as "environmental insecurity." But all the international institutions
with which I am familiar are devoted to this project in one way or another.
Staff comment - although the thoughts above are important considerations
for developing the notion of environmental security and should be kept
in mind, though they do not immediately lead to the utility of the environmental
security notion.
Comment 6: It's not necessary to give out the new concept, we
have enough concepts. A good new concept should be based on a new theory.
I don't know what's new about the environmental security concept. There
is no universal agreement about environmental security, hence, what is
the old concept to which you refer that we should list?- e.g. environmental
degradation, environmental decline.
Staff Comment - the author of these comments makes a very good point
about the need to prove why the notion of environmental security is needed,
and why it is more practical than such notions as environmental degradation,
environmental decline, as well as, we would add, environmental protection
and sustainable development. To some degree this report is addressing this
concern by exploring a range of views on the definitions, issues, and values
of environmental security.
Comment 7: While the lack of consensus on definitions can be
somewhat of a hindrance in discussing policy options, I would caution against
elevating one definition over another. We would welcome an elaboration
on which definitions have proven most helpful to whom, and in what circumstances.
Comment 8: A definition of environmental security can either
flow from top down - "this is environmental security" - or be built up
as a result of experience. We have too much of the former and not enough
study of the latter.
Comment 9: From a military perspective, in addition to conflict
prevention due to environmental factors, environmental security must focus
on: 1) Force Protection, protecting health of the soldier to carry out
the mission. This should remain priority from peacetime to operations other
than war to war; 2) Multinational Force Compatibility to ensure similar
environment, safety and health standards are achieved to protect coalition
forces to carry out the mission. This should remain priority from peacetime
to operations other than war to war; and 3) Environment and human health
protection to reduce present and future damage and costs. This is along
the lines of controlling collateral damage and strategic use of natural
resources in such a way that military action does not create widespread
devastation of environment and effects to public health as was the case
with the Kuwait oil fires. Placing emphasis on this issue, in support of
Laws of War, may greatly reduce post-war, operations other than war, activities/costs
by both military and civilian government and non-governmental organizations.
Comment 10: Wording for the definition
depends on whether it is to heighten concern among the public masses, or
to mobilize bureaucratic resources across governmental agencies, or to
galvanize new thinking among policy experts.
Comment 11: Environmental security
vs environmental protection. One should have a clear meaning of the adjective
'environmental' in the notion of environmental security. For example, in
the environmental management is not the management of the environment (we
should not assume to be 'God') but the management of human activities that
affect the environment. This approach is well accepted. In the definition
of environmental security my understanding has always been along the same
line of reasoning, i.e., we talk about human security from threats that
come from adverse (as regards humans are concerned) changes in the environment.
We call them environmental threats. Here, we follow the logic of such notions
as economic security, food security, social security, and even military
security. We do not talk about the security of food, for example. We
would rather say 'food safety.' Some definitions consider the environmental
security also as the security of the environment. In the conventional parlance
that means the protection of the environment, or, for short, 'environmental
protection'. Frankly, I have nothing against it. If the consensus can be
reached on that I would only be happy.
Environmental security versus environmental
safety. But then, if we tread this path, we should also include 'environmental
safety' into the definition of the environmental security. The notion of
'environmental safety' belongs linguistically to still another logic or
another way of coining notions such as industrial safety, nuclear safety,
etc. Here we discuss how safe are industrial gadgets, machine tools,
factories or nuclear reactors, nuclear power stations, nuclear wastes
for humans (we usually talk about industrial or nuclear risks, seldom using
the word 'threats' in this context). In the case of environmental safety
we talk about the safety of specific industrial facilities (as well as
power stations, agricultural farms, etc.) for humans through environmental
media if they negatively affect the environment polluting the air, water,
soil and generating too much wastes, i.e. how they observe environmental
standards of emissions, discharges, etc. There environmental safety standards
and norms of pollution emission levels/concentrations for economic agents
to operationalize this notion.
In sum, I would be happy to accept the
notion of 'environmental security' as one overarching the notions of environmental
component of human security, environmental protection, and environmental
safety. Next, one should make a good list of environmental security indicators.
Still, one should clearly prove the necessity and prudence of bringing
the notions of environmental security and environmental safety under the
umbrella of environmental security.
4.2 Environmental Security vs Sustainable Development
Although sustainable development and environmental
security are mutually reinforcing concepts and directions for policy, they
are not the same thing. Sustainable development focuses on environmentally
sound development that is economically, financially, socially, and environmentally
sustainable. Environmental security focuses more on preventing conflict
and loss of state authority due to environmental factors, as well as the
additional military needs to protect their forces from environmental hazards
and repair military-related environmental damages. The UN and related commissions
and conferences have popularized sustainable development as meeting the
needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations
to meet their own needs. There is not yet a similar universal definition
of environmental security.
Some comments stressed the linkage between
environmental security and sustainability:
Most urgent environmental security issues
are related to scarcity of renewable resources like water and land....there
is a need for environmental policy reform, in light of the mismatch between
existing global management capacity and likely threats to environmental
resources...The linkage between population growth, environmental security
and sustainable development must be made and accepted by all the actors
and mass publics worldwide. This may appear to be an impossible task but
these problems must be tackled simultaneously at all levels of world society.
Acceptance of a new vision or metaphor of what constitutes "the good life"
will be required.
Sustainable development is a key aspect
of the condition of environmental security and should be promoted through
a variety of mechanisms including education, steering national economies
with tax and subsidy programs, promoting green technology innovation, diffusion
and implementation, and strengthening multilateral environmental agreements
(MEAs). In particular, it is important to study the effectiveness of MEAs
and determine ways in which (a) compliance can be improved and (b) standards
can be strengthened.
4.3 General or Miscellaneous Issues about Environmental Security
There were a number of questions and issues that did not neatly fit into other categories, but may be of value for policy consideration. They have been identified during the study, but have not be rated for importance by the panel. Hence, no conclusions should be drawn from the sequence of their listing below. They are numbered for easier reference.
1. Sovereignty vs environmental security:
Since an environmental problem in one country can be so serious that it
endangers other countries, the right of self-defense could conflict with
national sovereignty. What should the appropriate procedure be to address
this situation?
2. National vs International responsibilities.
The section on threats and policy leadership shows that there are many
items which could lead to create problems about who should provide policy
leadership.
3. The view that environmental security
will militarize environmental programs expresses, "a pessimism about the
ability to change existing security institutions and mind sets...a militarization
of approaches to the environment is more likely than a greening of security."
(Florini and Simmons, 1998.)
4. To classify or not to classify. Since
environmental issues by definition can be affected by all sectors of society,
how should the military address secrecy?
5. What percent of the Army's capacity
should be used for deterrence of transborder military incursions of the
US and its allies, and what percent for logistical and related support
for countries with potential environmentally driven conflicts?
6. Will money be taken from military budgets
to solve environmental problems or will the military get involved in solving
environmental problems beyond those they directly cause in training and
other activities? Renner in Fighting for Survival, a World Watch
report, argues that US$200 billion of the world's $800 billion military
budgets should be used to preserve and manage our natural environment.
7. Significant barriers to promoting global
environmental security include: drive for short-term profit at the expense
of long-term sustainability; multinational corporations which exploit,
destroy, and then move on to greener pastures, leaving environmental degradation
and destruction of communities in their wake; the tradition of the open
ocean being fair game for any country that wishes to exploit its resources,
regardless of the cost to the rest of the planet; and the perception in
developing countries that it's only fair that they be free to squander
their natural resource capital just as First World countries already have.
8. Militarization of Environmental Policy.
Where does the defense responsibility and definitions for environmental
security begin and end relative to civilian environmental agencies?
9. Fundamental changes in assumptions about
life, economics, and culture are necessary to assure environmental security.
Tinkering with policy and management practices are just re-arranging the
chairs on the Titanic.
10. Assumptions may be wrong. The assumption
that population pressures on environment will lead to conflict are not
universally true. Environmental conditions in Nepal, Pittsburgh, etc. have
improved with increased population. On the other hand, human creativity
to improve conditions is not universally correct either; some groups lose.
11. Environmental security is viewed more
clearly from a global perceptive than a national one, e.g., why would addressing
global warming the responsibility of a national army? ...On the other hand,
decisions are made nationally, not globally.
12. Environmental security discussions
should adopt a broader and more humanitarian focus. It is not merely a
matter of national resilience in the future, but of the survival of disaffected
individuals throughout the world in the here and now....Environmental security
should take into consideration global interests and rights of future generations.