THE ENVIRONMENT AS A SECURITY ISSUE

 INTRODUCTION

Environmental  security  (ES)  becomes  a  key  objective  in  long-range   environmental   policy.   The   disturbing    rate  of  global environmental change, on the one hand, and the  signs  of  exceeding  the  earth's  system  limits  by  humankind,  on  the other, are now increasingly considered in terms of human security and  viewed  much more  urgent  and important a future challenge than the issue of war and peace, especially at the end of  the  cold  war.  This  view  has been  widely  shared,  including  the  developing  nations since the late 1980s-early 1990s. (Enhancing the Economic  Role  of  the  United  Nations.  South  Centre,  Oct.1992; Bjorkbon,L. et als., 1992; Soroos,M. 1989; Young.,O. 1989).

The central idea of defining the environment in terms of security is to help move it to the top of the priority list  of political actors (Lodgaard, Sverre, 1990. 'Environmental Conflict Resolution', paper presented at the UNEP meeting on 'Environmental Conflict Resolution', Nairobi, 30 March.).   Negatively  affected ecosystems with their boundaries not corresponding  to political  boundaries  between states  lead  to international   tensions  and  conflicts  because  of  trans-boundary pollution transfer or shared environmental resource  situations.

For the first time in history, humans are upsetting the very life support systems of the planet. The resultant changes will disrupt living conditions and economies and, consequently, provoke conflict. And if these changes are not arrested, or at least managed satisfactorily, they will have profound and probably irreversible consequences that will the security of nations (Mansfield,  William H., III, 1992. 'Editorial', Our Planet, vol.4, p.2).

In   discussing the notion of  environmental security,   several related issues  are to be considered such as   its relationship with conventional  military security  which immediately comes to mind when any notion of security  is treated,  whether  military security   leads to  environmental security concern,  or it  is becoming obsolete and environmental security  substitutes it or complement.  Furthermore,   the issues of  environmental security and its relationship with national, international and global security  involve the consideration of such notions as  threats, risks, vulnerability, regional stability.  Furthermore, environmental security is usually considered to be different from the security  of the environment, the latter  being  closer to  the notion of environmental protection.

The military security and the environment

The preoccupation  with  military  security  in  both  developed ('capitalist'  and  'socialist')  during the 'Cold war'  period  and  developing  countries used to overshadow other security dimensions. In addition, military capacity seemed to be paramount to protect identity and territorial integrity  of nation-states.

The break-up of the USSR and the Eastern military block as  well as  the  ensuing  end  of  the Cold War removed threats of a global nuclear  war and the need in expensive preparatory military activity involving the military use of technological change as well as natural, intellectual  and  labor  resources. However, the recent upsurge of local military conflicts, often  related  to  ethnic  and  religious disputes  (such as in Yugoslavia or in Russia over the Chechen area),  have  brought severe local environmental degradation from the use of conventional as well as  environmental  'weapons'  (e.g., burning  oil wells in the Gulf war, blowing up a dam in the conflict in   Moldavia)   with  long-term  consequences. Interestingly enough, the withdrawal of  Russia from the  huge  armaments market (Russia and the USA were the two dominant  and competing powers in it for a long time) and the ensuing reduction of its volume has not led to fewer violent international or intranational conflicts or to lessening international terrorism.

The so called non-allied nations defying the  then world's dichotomy developed their own military capability, still largely using weapons  supplied  by  countries  from  the  two blocks.  The recent nuclear  weaponry tests by India and Pakistan  echo the ideology of that period.

A Third World war scenarios on which military security  policies used to be based have been replaced by  the more realistic possibility of  proliferating regional conflicts and terrorist attacks which has  become the justification of  the military forces and military security. It is also argued that the military  may be  needed  of the military to quell  environment-related tension. It may be necessary to use military means to prevent the destruction of the rain forests. Thus, the securization of the environment may help perpetuate the historical practice of justifying the use of force by referring to seemingly objective  needs. (Brock, Lothar. (Peace Research Institute Frankfirt, Germany).The environment and security: conceptual and theoretical issues in  book  "Conflict and the Environment".Ed.by N.P.Gleditsch in collaboration with L.Brock, T.Homer-Dixon, R.Perelet, E. Vlachos. Kluwer Academic Publishers, p.20).

Sometimes, concern is expressed over environmental threats to military personnel stationed  abroad. Its focus on water quality, infectious disease and so on (R. Matthew, Feb. 11). The US Department of Defense  argues that  they are fully integrating environmental protection into the military mission: from the top generals to the newest privates, the military automatically consider the environment in making their decisions.   Militaries can use their technical capabilities, infrastructure, and management ability to achieve environmental goals, this reduces their impact on the environment.  (Remarks for Sherri Goodman at the Woodrow  Center Meeting, May 9, 1997.)

Box  1
CLINTON TELLS CADETS BE READY FOR BIOLOGICAL ATTACK

US President Bill Clinton told  graduating cadets at the Naval Academy   on May 22, 1998  that the availability of biological agents and advances in biotechnology mean that the United States must be prepared for an attack involving biological weapons against armed  forces or civilians.
The President outlined four critical areas of focus:

First, if terrorists release bacteria or viruses to harm Americans, we must  be able to identify the pathogens with speed and certainty. The new plan will seek to improve public health and medical surveillance systems so the alarm can be sounded fast. These improvements will benefit preparedness for a biological weapons attack, and will pay off in an enhanced ability to respond quickly and effectively to outbreaks of emerging infectious diseases.

Second, emergency response personnel must have the training and equipment to do their jobs. Building on current programs, President Clinton's plan will ensure that federal, state and local authorities have the resources and the knowledge they need to deal with a crisis.

Third, medicines and vaccines are needed to treat those who fall sick or prevent those at risk from falling ill because of a biological weapons attack. President Clinton will propose the creation of an unprecedented civilian medical stockpile. The choice of medicines and vaccines to be stockpiled will be made on the basis of the pathogens that are most likely to be in the hands of terrorists or hostile powers.

Fourth, the revolution in biotechnology offers enormous possibilities for combating biological weapons. President Clinton's plan will set out a coordinated research and development effort to use the advances in genetic engineering and biotechnology to create the next generation of medicines, vaccines and diagnostic tools for use against these weapons.
An additional $1 billion for chemical and biological defense have been added to the Five-Year Defense Plan, the President said.

Copyright (c) 1998 Environment News Service (ENS) unless noted otherwise.
 
 

Military  security,  being  in principle an environmentally unsound activity if only because it uses  natural resources and human labor for  non-productive  activities  (a kind of  overheads for the national economy) and  tempts to  use the environment  for  military purposes,  including  environmental  warfare. International efforts, such as the Enmod convention, the ban on nuclear testing in the air, water and on the ground were made to protect  the  environment  from the most acute military related destruction.

Many of  these  intentional  activities  against  or  using  the environment  to  achieve  superiority  over the adversary as well as prospective eco-terrorism are not covered by  current  international conventions and need to be duly and urgently addressed.

The  military  to  civil activity conversion  has led to prevailing peace  'penalties'  instead  of  immediate  dividends  because  the destruction of weapons and huge military stockpiles requires  special technologies which need to be designed and  which should be environmentally sound. They should usually   deal with  dangerous chemical substances. In addition,  concern is expressed over environmental problems which  may  result  from the erosion of  bombs disposed of in the Baltic, the North, the White seas after  World War II, the remnants of the Soviet submarine 'Komsomolets'  sunk  in the sea of Barents, etc.  Thus, military threats are usually   the result  of  intentional measures or  neglect  of  future  unthought-through consequence.

Environmental Threats

However,  the  security  of  individuals, communities, nation-states, and the global  community  as  a  whole  is  increasingly jeopardised  because  of unpremeditated environmental, non-military, threats.  These  threats  are  seen  to  be  exacerbated within the coming decades and should be addressed  collectively  or  through  globally agreed  upon  efforts. Their settlement could be effected peacefully through enhanced negotiation mechanisms, technological change, legal instruments, economic measures, and safeguarded by the  availability of  fast  response international military forces to nip any violence in the bud,  including  international  ecoterrorism  as  it  starts.

Otherwise,  environmental  threats  give  rise  to military forms of their resolution in search of gaining superiority over traditionally viewed enemies while 'the enemy' can be out of reach  spatially  (in the case of acid depositions) and time-wise (e.g., carbon dioxide released by  J.Watt's  first  steam  engine  -  "the  enemy"  -    is still in the atmosphere contributing to climate change). Along with economic security issues, often coupled with military ones,  human  security appeared prominent after the World War II and that led to the colonial system breakup and later,  especially  with the  CSCE-Amnesty  International efforts, to the global human rights concern. Similar to  military  security,  certain  levels  of  human rights  were  achieved  nationally  and  inter-country disparity in human rights leveled out.

Environmental  scarcity problems and conflict

    The  UNEP's  former  executive director M.Tolba stressed in 1990 that the international diplomacy of  the  next  50  years  would  be locked  into  the chaos and disruption created by the wasting of the natural foundation of the global economy. He argued that 'the  great danger  is  that we will not see the environmental dimensions behind the new conflicts' and maintained that  without  global  cooperation and  financial  commitment,  escalating  environmental tensions can trigger 21st century eco-wars (Tolba, M., 1990).  However,  security erosion  already  takes  place  even  without open social intra- and international conflicts.

Environmental factors are densely intertwined  with political, economic, social, and cultural factors, so that there are very few, if any, conflicts that could be  strictly defined as environmental conflicts. (Brock, L, 1997,p.22).

It is often argued that  scarcity of natural or environmental resources  leads to conflicts  (see  Box 1). The role of environmental degradation and scarcity in causing conflict is the subject of lively debate in the  US Department of Defense. Despite the lack of consensus  about these issues, it is viewed that resource abuse and rocketed conditions such as high population growth  rates, urbanization and migration, and the spread of infectious diseases may contribute significantly to instability around the world. (Remarks for Sherri Goodman at the Woodrow  Center Meeting, May 9, 1997)
 

Box 2.     Water scarcity may lead to violent conflicts
Dwindling water resources could threaten sustainable development and world peace as the French President Jacques  Chirac warned  at the international conference on Water and Sustainable Development hosted by the French government at the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural (UNESCO) Headquarters in March 1998.    The organizations Director-General Federico Mayor and President Chirac, told delegates that without immediate international co-operation to solve water problems, water wars could break out.

Speaking to government ministers from 80 countries, officials from  international, local and non-governmental organizations, business leaders and scientists, Mayor cautioned that over-use, due to population growth, waste and pollution are turning water into a scarce resource. "As it becomes increasingly rare, it becomes coveted, capable of unleashing conflicts. More than petrol or land, it is over water that the most bitter conflicts of the near future may be fought," Mayor said.

Highlighting the activities of UNESCO in the field, dating back to the early 1950s, Mayor stressed that the approach of UNESCO's International Hydrological Programme to dealing with water resource problems is integrated, both qualitatively and quantitatively. It includes "beliefs, value systems, behavior, cultural habits - the interaction between water and what is generally referred to as civilization."

"Our management of water," he said, "is crucial to determining whether "the future will be that of war, whose culture we have been perpetuating for thousands of years, or of harmony among human beings, between humanity and nature, between humanity and the cosmos, which will testify to a giant stride towards maturity."

President Chirac urged immediate action, saying that water consumption is increasing twice as fast as the world-s population - doubling every two decades. "At the turn of the century," Chirac said, "the amount of fresh water available to each inhabitant will be one quarter of what it was in 1950 in Africa, and one third of what it was in Asia and Latin America."
Like Mayor, President Chirac argued that the technical means to tackle this problem are available. "In these times of globalization, sustainable development consists of organizing, on a global scale, a common management of scarce resources," the French president said.
 
 
 

Box 3

From  the speech given by Professor Dr Klaus Topfer, Federal Minister for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety  in his capacity as  Chairman of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD)  at the   International Conference on Population and Development
            held in Cairo from 5 to 13 September 1994

"The menacing threat of water shortage, the alarming developments in global food production, combined with increased pollution and overuse of the soil resulting in shortages of agricultural areas, the shortage of energy resources and the possible results this will have on the climate as well as our growing mountains of waste: all these are also part of the complex challenge to be faced by each individual country and by the international community as a whole."
 
 

However, R. Lipschutz (University of California, USA) argues that it is not  environmental resource (say, water)   scarcity that leads to conflicts and possible wars as Malthus and Meadows  promulgated but the distribution of resources, that is for whom would food and minerals be scarce?   Scarcity is not a product of 'Nature' but, rather, a consequence of control, of ownership, of property, of sovereignly, of markets.   Even properly  functioning markets can foster maldistribution and relative scarcity.  Scarcity is only relative in this instance, but some people (and countries) do go hungry and the invocation 'to free up'  markets does little to address the immediate needs of those who have neither food nor money. Relative scarcity is also a condition of boundaries, in this instance political, cultural, or social ones. the resources must remain sovereign property. In other words, scarcity is a social construction that, as mentioned above, serves the commodification of nature. (R.Lipschutz (University of California, USA). Environmental Conflict and Environmental Determinism: The Relative Importance of Social and Natural Factors,p.44)

 "It is this tension  between territorial sovereignty and the sovereignty of Nature that sets up the basis for problems such as 'water wars' in the first place." (p.45)

The distribution of  resources among states is uneven, a condition often blamed on Nature and geography , with the result that one state finds itself needing to interact with another. A water war is simply the international equivalent of an unjust 'taking' without the constitutional trappings.   Creating open, trans-border markets in water will non necessarily lead to 'water peace'. It could mean, instead, that the highest bidder wins the water and the losers get angry. For much of human history Nature was sovereign. Nature makes rules and humans were obliged to observe them or die. Sir Francis Bacon (1620): 'Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed'.  But humans escaped from that (first) Nature long ago. Of course, we do not control all geobiophysical processes that might be thrown at us. At some level we do share the same atmosphere, climate system, and hydrological cycle, but we remain separated by all kinds of boundaries, not the least of which is that demarcating power from weakness. (p.46).  Thus, while the invocation of  'interdependence' as well as 'environment and conflict' as 'facts of Nature' are almost commonplace, they are virtually always judged as a cost to us, to our sovereignty and autonomy. Those who do want to alter their ways of doing things can call on national sovereignty for protection; those who want others to change their ways of doing things can call on ecological interdependence. (p.47)

The Bern group (Swiss Peace Research Foundation) headed by Kurt Spillman and Guenter Baechler makes  a distinction is made between economic and ecological scarcity.  Economic scarcity refers to the quantity of a resource; ecological scarcity , to its quality. Whereas economic scarcity of relative, ecological scarcity may turn absolute to the degree that degradation  leads to an irreversible destruction of resources. (L.Brock, 1997, p.23)

The Toronto group (Homer-Dixon, et als) includes in its definition of  environmental  scarcity 'structural scarcity', which is caused by an unbalanced distribution of resources that severely  affects less powerful groups in society.  So, it is here, too, it is not environmental scarcity as such that determines  conflict behavior; rather, it co-functions with the distributive properties of societies.

L. Brock  stresses  that  there is a dire need to  look into possibilities for striking a new balance between the commercial and the 'existential' use of natural resources and to distinguish between depletion -  or scarcity - caused by commercial interests and by poverty.  Environmental conditions have to be seen in their poilitical, social, economic, and cultural contexts.

Sustainable development and  environmental security

The environment has so far been firmly established  as  a  major priority  issue  in  natural  sciences  and  only recently in social sciences.  It  is on the government and international political agenda but has not yet been adequately placed on the security  agenda,   although some inroads were made in this direction.

The  environment  can  now  be considered as a security issue in view of increasingly unsustainable features of  modern  development. Environmental  security  (ES)  is  seen  as protection capability of societal  systems  (communities)  to  withstand   threats   of   (1) environmental  asset  scarcity,  (2)  environmental risks or adverse changes, and (3) environment related tensions and  conflicts.

(R.Perelet (1994).  The environment as a security issue. In book "The environment: towards  a sustainable  future. Ed. by Dutch committee for long-term environmental policy. Kluwer Academic Publishers).  These components  reflect major deepening conflicts between humans and the environment - (1) and (2) and among humans over the environment (3)).

They also reflect growing vulnerability of humans in front of (a) environmental stress and (b) social unrest over the environment. Sustainable development and ES are mutually re-enforcing. Ostensible superiority  of  humans  over  nature  since the onset of industrial revolution with technological change  breakthroughs  was  fueled  by economic  thinking  oriented  at  economic growth as well as growing consumption  and  production as targets for achieving well-being. It was developed at the expense of the environment that was  considered to be limitless, having infinite assimilating capability in spite of all  its  disturbances. Of accounting point of view, natural (environmental) resources were  taken  as  free.  Their  loss,  e.g. cutting  down  trees,  contributes  to  the GNP growth as production output  until  the  last  tree  is cut. After that GNP sharply falls
(WRI, Dec.1991).

The  scientific  revolution  of  the  1950s greatly contributed to the environmental  deterioration.  Instead  of  independence  from   the environment  technological  change, economic development and adopted value  systems  increased  human   insecurity   and   threats   from environmental   changes.  In  fact,  technological  change  was  the foundation  of  military-industrial  complex.  Structural   military security  was  behind  functional  economic  security.  In  fact  in totalitarian   regimes   economic,   humanitarian,   and   political insecurity  was  compensated  by overinflated military security. The growth of GNP was a reflection of such thinking.
    Developed  nations  handle  rather  easily  the three components within their countries or regions to achieve their own environmental sufficiency.  However,  their  efforts  are  often  made  using  the
not-in-my-backyard approach increasing the environmental North-South disparity (and tensions) -  the so-called  'environmental footprints' ,  with externalities shouldered by the latter and  following  generations, unless some kind of international ES  management is exercised. The direct causes of environmental  change  and the scarcity are linked with the established pattern of technological change. The latter   is   influenced  by  established  economic  mechanisms  and instruments aimed at patterns of traditional neoclassical  economics oriented  at  economic growth with modern consumption and production patterns which, in its  turn,  are  linked  with  the  disregard  of environmental values.

Evolution of Environmental Concern

The  environment  has been a  human security  concern (in fact, a survival issue)  for  humans  for  millennia.  Devastating  natural  disasters claiming  lives,  disrupting  economic   activity,   ruining   human artifacts, affecting life styles are  still  often  handled  at  top national    and,    sometimes,    international   levels.   However, technological change (the build-up  of  the  technosphere)  made  an illusion of human  independence  or  their  protection  from  nature adverse impacts.

In the late 19th century, burgeoning natural resource  intensive industrial  activity  led  to  the creation of small public (mainly, scientific) groups urging the protection of animals and plants  from overexploitation.  The  scientific environmental movement culminated in setting up the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) in Switzerland in 1948 that co-authored the World   Conservation   Strategy   in   1978.    The    International Geosphere-Biosphere  Programme  was  launched  in the late 1980s and later complemented with the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change  Programme.  Thus,  the  environment  became   a   scientific community priority issue.

The scientific revolution in the 1950s resulted in  the  growing understanding,   only   twenty   years  later,  of  severe  negative human-made  quantitative  and  qualitative  changes  in  the   human environment.   In   addition   to   social  limitations  imposed  on technological  development,  environmental  limits  were  recognized. Scientists,  and the public  at large, joined efforts to make governments heed environmental problems and change the  course  of  development.

The  1972  UN  Stockholm  conference  set  up  UNEP and gave rise to environment  institution  building   at   government   levels.  However,  they became essentially environmental conservation and clean-up sectoral agencies loosely connected with other  ministries. Particular  attention  was  drawn  to environmental, end-of-the-pipe controls  that sometimes added another sector of the economy instead of permeating  it.  However,  the  UNCED  vividly  demonstrated  the importance  of  the  environment-economy nexus and the need to bring the business community in it. The environment figures prominently on the  North-South agenda nowadays. Thus, the environment has become a government priority both nationally and in international fora.

In  the  meantime, the environment, in particular its purposeful modification, played  a  role  to  gain  military  superiority.  The environment was both a target and a weapon in military action  which gave rise to a body of international legislation in  order  to  stop this use of the environment (Westing A.,1984; 1986). Its lacunas are vivid  from  the  recent  examples  of  using oil for marine and air pollution in the Gulf war and blowing up a  dam  protecting  a  pond with   hazardous  chemicals  during  the  Moldavia  ethnic  military conflict to pollute a nearby river that was  a  fresh  water  supply source.  The  use  of  the  environment  as a weapon in conflict may develop in view of future natural resource  scarcities  (Gleik,  P., 1992)

The  intentional  adverse  use of the environment as a weapon in settling  disputes should not be discarded as manifested in the Gulf war. The notions of  'the  environmental  terrorism',  environmental crimes  are  now  discussed.  Military related environmental adverse human impacts during numerous local wars fuel international tension.

In the mid-80s it was noted by UNEP's  executive  director  that the  thread  of  national  security,  and hence the thread of global security, was interwoven with  the  environmental  issues  at  hand. (Tolba, M., May 1984). He also stated that the traditional  military concept of security was becoming increasingly  obsolete.(Tolba,  M., Oct.1984).

In  the meantime environmental stress (due to a growing scarcity of  environmental  resources  and  a  dwindling  quality  of   those available)  became  a  recognized  source  and  effect  of political
tension and military conflict, i.e. a security  issue.  (Our  Common Future, WCED, 1987).  It was pointed out that the future well-being  of the human race, its  security  on  this  planet,  depends  on  minimizing  and managing negative environmental effects of human activities, whether they  result  from industrial pollution or the pollution of poverty. The relationship between environmental issues and  their  management and  national  and  international  security  were  taken as a given. (UNEP, 1989).

Hence,  the  environment  became  a  security  concern. However, it is not treated so institutionally neither at national or international levels yet. Various proposals were made to set up a UN environmental  security  (ES)  council  or an ES committee at the UN security council before the UNCED (Evteev et  als,1989;  Gebremedhin et  als.,1989)  but  the  latter  did not even discuss environmental security matters. In fact, it was noted that early on  in  1989  the Western  group made it clear that military activities would not be a subject for negotiation under UNCED (The Earth Summit,  1992).  That may  have entailed that the whole area of environmental security was left out to be dealt  with  in  the  post-UNCED  period.  After  the conference M.Strong, UNCED secretary-general, stressed the necessity of 'investment in environmental security' (Strong, M., 1992).
     The book "The world environment 1972-1992.  Two  decades of challenge". Ed. by M.Tolba, O.El-Kholy, E.El-Hinnawi, M.Holdgate, D.McMichael  and  R.Munn.  UNEP. Chapman & Hall.London stresses that the concept of security has evolved into a view  that  embraces  the interlocking   elements   of   environmental   security,  individual security,  societal  security,  economic  security,   and   military security.  It  is  now  abundantly  clear that the insecurities that first occur in or around those parts of  the  world  facing  serious environmental   problems,   particularly   in  the  least  developed countries,  spread  out quickly to threaten whole regions. There are also signs that conflicts over shared water resources could increase in  several  parts  of  the  world.(UNEP.  Nov.1992).  Environmental security  is  viewed  as  an  inseparable component of comprehensive international  security,  the  upholding  of  which  is   a   shared responsibility    of    the    entire    international    community.  (N.Gebremedhin et als.,1989).

Various agencies of the US government use the concept of environmental security including: the Central Intellegence Agency, Defense Intellegence, Deaprtment of Defence, Department of State, and the Environment Protection Agemcy. There is no official definition that unifies thinking and action related to environmental security; rather, each group has developed its own understanding.  Thus the  CIA and Defense tend to stress the relationship between environmental change and conflict and instability. (R.Matthew. School of Foreign Service, Gergetown University, his letter of  Feb. 11, 1998)

US President Clinton and Secretary of Defence Aspin have creayed a new position - that of the deputy under-secretary of defense for environmental security -  in the Department of Defense to highlight the importance of the environment in national security.  The Clinton Administration is unified in recognizing that environment is important to US national security, and can be a factor in conflicts throughout the world. In his Earth Day statement in April 1997, secretary of defence Cohen  said, "environmental protection is critical to the Defense Department mission and environmental considerations shall be integrated into all defense activities'.  (Remarks for Sherri Goodman at the Woodrow  Center Meeting, May 9, 1997)

Re-defining Security

The  Palme  Commission  advocated 'common security' (Independent Commission on Disarmament and Security Issues.1982) focussing on the mutual vulnerability of contemporary societies that  challenges  the usefulness  of  unilateral  national military security and calls for mutual co-operation and disarmament. However, it failed to  consider the environmental dimension.

There  are  numerous definitions of security. S.Lodgaard stresses that traditionally, the goal of national security policies has  been twofold:  (1) to preserve territorial integrity; and (2) to preserve the  right  to  self-determination.  In  his  view  the  concept  of environmental  security  is  fairly  precise and politically useful, albeit still rather controversial. (Lodgaard, S., 1992).

It  is  also  argued  that security is about providing protection from threats to social order  (Dalby,  S.,1992).  In  fact,  at  the national  level  security is provided by the state to its people. It has never been limited to  military  security  covering  traditional social   (including  human  rights),  medical  (medicare), and economic (protecting entrepreneurial and other economic  activity).  Military forces have been just one of the security maintaining instruments. Thus, objects   of  security  activity  are  traditionally  the  country's integrity and its protection in  the  international  community.  The country's  integrity  includes the security of its people with their health and wellbeing,  territory,  economic  activity,  social  (and political)  institutions, social order, and lately sound environment (integrity of ecosystems  and  natural  cycles).  The  international dimension  of national security includes the creation or maintenance of international climate  conducive  to  the  country's  sustainable development whatever it means depending on a selected strategy.

The  impossibility  of  performing  these  tasks  alone   leads countries  to  create  military,  political, economic alliances on some common basis (territorial, ideological, cultural,  humanitarian grounds).  In international agreements, conventions or organizations, states  always  give  away  some  part  of   their sovereignty   and decision-making  capacity  to an  international  entity  (a treaty, convention,  agreement,   organization).   Moreover,   trans-boundary transfer  of  pollutants,  regional, and global environmental issues are permeating national boundaries and can conventionally be treated as the  infringement  of  national  sovereignty  or  an  aggression. Obviously, that represents an environmental threat to the population health,  erodes  buildings,  monuments,  paintings as in the case of acid  deposition and, thus, affects environmental security. However, this 'aggression' is  usually unpremeditated  and  it  is  hard  to identify  'the  enemy'.  Even  if  the  polluting country is identified, the military solution is often inapplicable.

It  has  been  known for centuries that natural resources, along with territorial claims (another natural  resource)  and  people  as additional  labor  force, are often the main goals in international conflicts with the use  of  violence  and  military  weaponry.  Such violent,  often  unlawful,  action of one country against another is usually called 'aggression'. The confronting parties  in  a  conflict are  called  'enemies'  or  'adversaries'.  The  protection  of  the nation-state (with its  population,  social  institutions,  economic wealth,  etc.)  as  well  as  its sovereignty from an aggression or a threat thereof is, in  fact,  'security'.  Therefore,  the  military security  is  such  protection  based on military means (weapons and associated technology). The notions of 'vulnerability', 'threat', 'deterrence',  'military  sufficiency', 'parity' are in general use.

The distinction between threats and vulnerabilities points to  a key  division  in  security  policy,  namely,  that states can seek to reduce their insecurity either by reducing their vulnerability or by preventing or lessening threats. In other  words  national  security policy   can   either   focus   inward,   seeking   to   reduce  the vulnerabilities of the state itself, or outward, seeking  to  reduce external threat by addressing its sources.(Buzan, B., 1992)

Environmental   threats  (adverse  changes)  often  result  from international environmental problems: the waters around Denmark  are fouled up, not only by that country, but by those of all other North and  Baltic sea countries; the Chernobyl accident is another example of an international environmental  threat  (Peterson, N., 1988)     In  future  'unconventional  threats' may pose a greater problem for Canada and the international  community  than  the  standard  or conventional  threats.  It  is  stressed  that  a  new definition of security  must  include,  in  particular,  an  appreciation  of  the importance  of  resources  and  the environment as key components of security.  (Lonergan,  S., 1992). Environmental changes may become a cause of acute conflict. (Homer-Dixon,T.,1991).

Heavy guns were used during the 'Cod War' in the North Sea as  recently  as  in  the mid-70s. This was an example of a military conflict  around   an   extraterritorial   natural   (environmental) resource'   or,   to   be   exact,   an  environmental  resource  in extraterritorial waters.

The two major converging trends  occurred  recently.  First,  the notion  of  security  has  acquired  specific  object  (or  external undesirable change) orientation such as food security,  humanitarian (human   rights   protection)   security,   economic  security,  and environmental (or ecological) security.
     On the other  hand,  natural  resources  (or  assets)  are  now considered to be part of the broader notion of the environment while the  notion  of resources is being stretched. In fact, environmental amenity  such  as  a  nicely  looking  landscape  is  seen   as   an non-exhaustible  environmental resource. In addition, changes in the environment with adverse direct or indirect impact on  human  health and welfare are given much attention.

The  resulting   uneven  worsening  of  environmental   situation (because  of  the  uneven  local  impact  of  global,  regional, and international environmental problems) for nation-states  and  people or  of  their  access  to  environmental  resources  has lately been contributing to intra- and international tension.  Furthermore,  the property  rights  to  unconventional  environmental  resources  (the atmosphere, outer space, international water bodies, etc.) are often unclear or not properly  specified  which  exacerbates  tension.  In addition  to  the  above unpremeditated adverse environmental impact countries can intentionally resort to using  the  environment  as  a weapon   (environmental  warfare)  or  that  can  be  undertaken  by individuals (ecoterrorism).

The developing nations stress the necessity of an updated,  more comprehensive   definition  of  'collective  security'  that  should include tackling, in particular, environemntal problems and thus the underlying national and international causes of  conflict  that  may otherwise later require emergency peace-keeping measures. (The South Centre, Oct.1992).  They  point  out  that  potentially  conflicting issues  are  multiplying  in  the South and the North, including, in particular, the environment. The future development of the countries of the South, now increasingly described in  terms  of  'sustainable development',  depend  significantly  on  'environmental  space'  to accommodate their industrialization  and  rising  living  standards,  that  must  essentially be made available through corrective actions on the part of the developed countries to reduce current and  future pressures on the environment. (The South Centre, Aug.1992).

Security  is increasingly related to  the pursuit of freedom from threat and in the international context (Buzan,B., 1992, p.13). It  is  about  the ability of states and societies to maintain their independent identity and their functional integrity with the  bottom line  being  about  survival and existence. However, above this line things may even be more blurred and be easily mixed up with everyday uncertainties of life.  B.Buzan  treats  the  personal  security  of individuals  as  secondary making the sovereign territorial state the standard unit of security. Most  states  are  bureaucratically  much better  equipped to be sensitive to military, political and societal threats   than   they   are   to   environmental   ones.   Regional, trans-boundary,  and global environmental changes and threats thereof are beyond the capacity of individual states and call for collective international  efforts.  Furthermore,  the  notion  of   sovereignty becomes  fuzzy  because  of  trans-boundary  and global environmental problems.

Breaking down the security of  human  collectivities  into  five major   interdependent  sectors  -  military,  political,  economic, societal, and environmental - B.Buzan  defines  the  latter  as  the maintenance  of  the  local  and  the  planetary  biosphere  as  the essential support  system  on  which  all  other  human  enterprises depend.

B.Buzan  discusses  the  notion  of  national  security and its environmental dimension. He argues that an uncontested universal and all-purpose definition of security may be impossible since  security is  akin  to  such  notions  as  love, justice, equality, power, and liberty. But while it is  a  tricky  idea  to  apply,  it  also  has enormous   power   as   an   instrument   of  social  and  political mobilization. Security is a positive value. It  can  be  seen  as  a right.  To  classify  something as a security issue is to legitimize exceptional  measures of collective action. He points out that those who wish to raise the  political  profile  of  environment  need  to consider carefully whether their purposes are best served by casting environmental issues in security terms, or whether it would be wiser to address them as part of the economic agenda. (B.Buzan)
 

New Dimensions of Security

Traditional security thinking centers on the nation-state and is linked   with   'actor'   (or   enemy-state)   related  military  or non-military (e.g., trade barriers, embargoes)  threats.  Structural threats  like  resource  depletion  and  degradation, AIDS, drugs or environmental threats are also often considered in terms of  looking for and dealing with an enemy.

The natural environment has become a  medium  of  unintentional environmental  aggression  or  intrusion  through  the  trans-boundary transfer of air and water pollutants (another kind of  'bads').  The global  environmental  change  is  causing  a  general international concern and its effects can unevenly struck individual nations.

Ecology suggests a different understanding of security. Strength is  not  measured  in  terms  of  physical metaphors but in terms of diversity and redundancy. Survival relates to  sustainability  which depends  on  cycling  and  conservation  of resources. Environmental security  challenges  the  claims  of  state  sovereignty,  precise boundaries,  and  military  force.  It  also  challenges  the modern presuppositions of security and sovereignty as control.

Environmental   security   offers  a  more  fruitful  basis  for cooperation among nations than military security because it is  both a positive and inclusive concept requiring and nurturing more stable and  cooperative  relationships  among  nations (Renner,M.,1989).
Many environment related conflicts over the years  follow  this pattern   of   thinking,   especially   between   countries  sharing terrestrial   and   marine   ecosystems   (e.g.,   regional    seas, international  rivers, extraterritorial fisheries, trans-boundary air pollution), have shown that  the  environment  is  also  a  national security   problem,   though   of  subregional  or  regional  scale. Environmental pressures and competition  for  resources,  especially within  the global 'commons' are expected to give rise to additional conflicts   among  nations.  (Pirages,  D.C.,  1992).  Environmental threats to peace and security are growing at a frightening pace. The global environmental  changes  may  become  the  major  non-military threat  to  international  security  and  the  future  of the global economy  (MacNeil,J. Winter 1989-90).

Environmental  security  presupposes  looking  for  sources and actors behind them (since many environmental changes are human  made or  induced  and sources are linked with some societal institutional structures  -  communities,  companies,  nation-states)  but   since environmental  'threats'  are  usually non-premeditated, actors with whom environmental threats should be discussed should not be treated as enemies. However, the first reaction  was  to  impose  sanctions, develop  a  conflict or even resort to fighting (e.g., the 'cod' war in the North sea). Recently,  attempts  to  look  for  environmental parity  solutions  have recently started. They are discussed later in this paper.

Diplomatic conferences on environmental issues (e.g. combating the  ozone  layer  depletion),  the  development  of   environmental domestic  and  international  law,  the  adoption  of  a  package of resolutions  on  environmental  matters at every UN General Assembly session, the placement of the environment  on  the  agenda  of  G-7, G-77 countries, the North-South dialogue, NATO, EC, and other global significance international fora stressed the political dimension  of environmental problems since they affected integrity of the national and   international   relations   fabric.

In 1985, the Warsaw Treaty Organization adopted a  statement  on the consequences of arms race for the environment and other aspects of   environmental   security   ('Soviet  Russia',  1988).  A  draft resolution on international environmental security was discussed  at the 42nd  UN GA  (UN, 1987; UN, 1988) but failed to be adopted because the  difference  between  environmental  security  and environmental protection was not clearly indicated and, in addition, it  was  also not  clear  how  to  make this concept operational. However, western diplomats, being not certain about the validity of the  subject  per se,  were suspicious towards it if only because it was introduced by Soviet block countries. The Soviet foreign policy in the late 1980s, specially in the UN, contained an apparent  environmental  component in an  attempt  to  invigorate  ineffective  internal  environmental activities. (Perelet, R., 1988; Shevardnadze,E., 1989)

UN GA Resolution 42/442 on environmental security referred  the matter  to the 43rd UN GA session at which the ES notion was dropped. Despite these developments the concept of ES is still being actively debated among scientists and international fora. In late 1991,  NATO adopted  a  new  strategic  concept that recognized an environmental component of security. (NATO, 1991).

The 1992  UN  Conference  on  the  Environment  and  Development (UNCED)  has  firmly linked the environment with development, adding economic factors to ecological and legal ones. Placing environmental issues only on the economic agenda  would  narrow  their  scope  and significance.  However,  the  UNCED  failed  to address military and other delicate security dimensions of the environment.

However,  the  access  to  useful  natural  resources  and  the expansion of territories were always national security issues in the economic domain. In fact, wars for natural resources and territories were  considered  to be an extension of the national economic policy by military means.

Concern  over 'environmental security' has grown dramatically as scientific   evidence   mounts   on   the   consequences   of   acid precipitation,  the  depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer, and global warning. (Soroos,M., 1990).

Environmental security for Sustainable Development

According  to  J.Galtung  security  is based on the goals of the environment and development systems (Galtung,J.1982).     S.Lodgaard underlines that environmental conflicts are  becoming more  urgent.  These  fall into two categories: human beings against nature - a question of  sustainability;  and  human  beings  against other  humans  -  a  question  of  development.  The key to conflict resolution is sustainable development (Lodgaard, S., 1992).

The  concept  of sustainable development  indicated in the World Conservation Strategy in the late 70s and made  the  cornerstone  of the  Bruntdland Commission report has received general international support at the UNCED.  The  attention  is  now  turned  to  changing patterns of life style (production and consumption patterns) and the population  growth  issue as well as the management of international environmental externalities, international and global  commons,  the distribution  of environmental costs (liabilities) and benefits among  nations.  The elaboration of international  and  national  environmentally sound  'rules  of  the  game'  in economic activities to make use of dynamic market forces and entrepreneurship  for  correcting  'market failures' and improving the state of the environment.

A  change  from  economic  and  socio-economic development (with economic  growth  indicators  and  monetary   economy),   from   the environmental    protection   to   socio-environmental   sustainable development (aiming at social and environmental objectives) with  an effective (economic) mechanism of allocating resources to meet human wants and preferences.

Environmental  security  issues  also challenge   the  political organization of 'development', and the perpetuation of modern (state) models  of  social  organization, and the  global  political  order  to establish  innovative  new  modes  of  governance. In many ways they point  to  the  inadequacy  of  market  and   state   run   economic arrangements  to  meet the basic needs of populations. Environmental themes have also  facilitated  the  construction  of  new  political networks  linking  grassroots  groups into an expanding global civil society. Environmental movements are also  operating  in  ways  that violate  the  theme of the state as a political container. (Dalby,S. 1992, p.515).

In  environmental  issues  often  the  most  important political factors are local citizens groups, social  movements,  international environmental   organizations,  transnational  corporations  or  the social arrangements of land tenure. In linking environment to solely state defined understandings of security there is a danger  of  only addressing   government  agencies  and  advocating  their  survival. (Dalby,S, 1992, p.517). In fact, in the mid-80s  three  quarters  of the  world's  development  was financed by the private sector (UNEP, May 1985) that was the major source of environmental stress.

Security cannot be provided by continuously denuding  ecological resources  and assuming that the miracles of the market and military technology will always provide the answer (Dalby,S, 1992, p.518).

It  has  become habitual that international environmental issues need to be considered in  a  systemic  way  and  not  limited  to  a clean-up  issue.  Environmental values are being considered on their own  merit  along  with  material  and  social  values.  Rights   of individuals to healthy  environment  are  declared  to  be  possibly complemented  by  rights of individuals, communities, and countries to environmental  security.  However,  conceptually   the   notion   of  environmental  security has not been broadly accepted, though it has been discussed in the scientific community for more than  a  decade.

Institutionally, environmental security issues are often handled by  governments  and  international  community  on  an  ad  hoc  and piecemeal basis. There are strong warnings that humankind is  beyond limits.  One  of the characteristics of that situation is increasing conflict over resources or pollution emission  rights,  less  social solidarity,  more  hoarding,  and  greater  gaps  between  haves and have-nots (Meadows,D. 1992).

Natural  disasters  severely  affecting poorer (more vulnerable) countries  require  huge  resources  to  mend their consequences and often lead to the displacement of people to other countries  causing or  exacerbating  international tension and calling for humanitarian assistance.

Human-induced  natural  disasters  and   environmental   changes affecting  unevenly  many  or  all  countries  raise the question of settling international disputes about the size  of  contribution  of individual  countries  to  these  changes  and  of  impact  (damage) incurred by others as well as of liabilities of the former  and  the distribution of liabilities among the latter.

The rising density and the scale  of  human  activity  that  are significantly  associated  with the market as the main driving force of expanding human activity and the growing  population  lie  behind major   environmental  changes  and  cause  environmentally  related international tension and conflicts (polluting externalities and the 'not-in-my-backyard'   approach).   Like   economic   cycles,   many environmental   changes   represent   threats  without  agents  that complicate the security issue. The security label is  a  useful  way both   signalling   danger   and   setting   priority   as  well  as characterizing environmental issues for political  purposes.  It  is especially urgent now that the military security agenda  has  scaled down  from  global  to local conflict resolution while environmental and  economic  one  gets more dynamic and more central to day-to-day concerns.

Human  conflicts  with  (or  pressure   on)   the   environment necessarily  lead to environmentally related conflicts among humans.     To  different  economies,  environmental  security  may  have  a different  national  or  regional  emphasis.

Advanced  industrialized  nations  may  be concerned to continue access  to  resources  of  the  global   commons   for   their   own exploitation; with harmful effects of pollution (in water bodies and the  atmosphere)  that  affect  the  quality  of  their own national resources; and with industrial, technological, and other hazards  of toxic or radioactive releases.

H.Daly and J.Cobb discuss  the  three  greatest  threats  to  the security  of  the  United  States:  environmental,  the  decline of national morale and economic decline. The  environmental  threat  is the  erosion  of  the  soil, the pollution of the air and water, the extinction of species, the poisoning of the land  by  chemicals  and nuclear was, and the combined threat of  ozone  depletion  and  the greenhouse effect (Daly,H., Cobb Jr.,J. 1990).

On the other hand, developing nations may be more concerned with the immediate satisfaction of their basic needs, including needs for food,  fuel,  or  water,  and  get  compensation  for  environmental externalities  they  have  to  bear.  T.Homer-Dixon singles out four principles,  often  interlinked,  social  effects  of   environmental changes:   decreased   agricultural  production,  economic  decline, population  displacement,  and   disruption   of   legitimized   and authoritative  institutions  and  social  relations (Homer-Dixon,T., 1992). Environment related human health impairment could  be  easily added to this list.

Environmental security should be equitable for states, cultures, and generations. Problems of environmental security cannot be solved within national frontiers  which  usually  do  not  correspond  with ecosystem boundaries. The notion of sovereignty is difficult (if not impossible) to maintain within an ecological frame of reference. The very  essence  of ecology is based on the concept of interdependence rather than independence. As a  first  approximation,  it  could  be argued  that environmental security problems must be responded to at the ecosystem level at which  they  occur, whether  inter-state  or encompassing   international  commons (Gebremedhin,N. et als.,1989).

Economics for community aims at the sufficiency of goods  for the  sake  of community well-being, and not at the endless growth of production and consumption. The sufficiency sought must take account of the community's need fort security, but this way of thinking  is disinclined  to  identify  security  with quantity of arms and their technological sophistication. On the other  side,  an  economics  of community  is  committed to serving the national well-being. It sees that well-being in comprehensive ways, and security is  a  prominent part thereof.(Daly,H.,.Cobb Jr.,J., 1990, p.333).

Nowadays  diminishing  traditional  resource  quantity (physical scarcity) is now supplemented by new resources and, what  is  really new,  by  waning resource quality which leads to the search for both additional and better quality resources internationally.

Therefore,  in  addition  to the scarcity of traditional natural resources  (such  as  fossil  minerals)  attention  has  lately  and increasingly been drawn to the expanded notion of resources, namely, to  the  environmental resources the scarcity (in terms of depletion and loss of biodeversity) of which may be considered as a factor  in international  tension.  These additional considerations reflect the appearance of new  scarcities  such  as  those  of  drinking  water, topsoil,  conditionally  renewable  natural resources (e.g. forests, biodiversity), natural amenities. The natural environment is  viewed not  only as a shrinking source of goods but also a limited sink for bads (waste).

The  present generation may forclose a number of options for the future generations which could result in inter-generational tension. However, it is hard to tell in which way it can be manifested (e.g., the neglect of elderly population?) in the 21st century.

Furthermore,  international  trade  has  become   a   human-made trans-boundary  carrier  of  environmentally  unsound  technologies, industries, goods, and wastes ('bads'). In this case the  notion  of  the  enemy  gets  blurred.  However, the vulnerability of states has added an environmental  dimension.  The  environmental  defense  or, rather,  security  becomes important at national, international, and global levels.

Natural and environmental catastrophes are turning into famines, which  produce a growing stream of refugees fleeing from poverty and environmental disasters. The UNEP estimates that by the turn of  the millennium   one   billion  environmental  refugees  will  have  been displaced  from  their  homelands  because  their  basic  means  of survival   have  been  destroyed  (Nuscheler,F. 1991).

In  general,  perfect security is hardly obtainable or definable. That is why attention is usually drawn to dealing  with  insecurity, or with threats to and vulnerabilities of specific societal entities in the security framework. Of all threats,  those  are  singled  out that  affect  integrity,  identity, and independence of the security subject. Sometimes this is a matter of political choice rather  than an objective fact taking into account specific or diffuse,  temporal and  spatial  nature of threats, their probability and consequences, uniqueness and previous historical experience, etc.  B.Buzan  argues that  perhaps  only the Dutch have a well-developed historical sense of environmental threats as a national issue (B.Buzan).

Threats   accepted   on   the   political  agenda  are  usually legitimized and the mobilization of resources and the use of extreme measures,  sometimes  including  force,  for  their  management  are effected.  Thus  the  goal of security is to protect from (remove or alleviate) external and internal threats and keep vulnerability low.

The management of threats (or environmental  changes)  involves their  monitoring,  identification,  analysis,  assessment (including perception),  threat  communication,   and   management   of   threat realization  (emergencies).  The  management of vulnerability is the development  of  the  capacity  to  withstand  or  be insensitive to threats.  Many  of  these  threats are increasingly of international  (regional to global) nature.

Global Change and Environmental Security

The issues  affecting  sustainable  development  options  are especially  manifest  in  the  case  of  global environmental change (GEC). The environment rarely comes as the sole or even  main  cause of  social  (intra- or international) tension. The five main factors affect international security in  the  case  of  GEC  and  cause  or contribute to social tension:
 a GEC heterogeneous perception by countries,
 its uneven impact on countries and regions,
 a differing  contribution  of  countries  to GEC,
 a heterogeneous  national/regional  response  and the capacity to respond to GEC,
 risks and uncertainties in the knowledge about GEC

In  addition,  environmental  issues are often linked with others and  used  as  a  bargaining  chip  in  international   negotiations.

International  environmental  dimension of GEC has recently received
growing  attention (Keyfitz,N.,1991; Doos, Bo.R.,1991; Maier-Regaud,
G.,1991).

Global environmental change is increasingly  considered  to  have resulted  from  (e.g. the  ozone layer depletion) or been exacerbated (climate change, the loss of biodiversity) by human activities, with an appreciable time lag between human action and nature's response.

On  the  other hand, there is a body of literature that discusses approaches  to   environmental   security   (Perelet,R.,   Nov.1991, Perelet,R. 1991; Perelet R. et als., 1989;.Gebremedhin et als.,1989; Galtung,J.,1982)  and  attempts  to make institutional proposals for the UN system without taking a systems view of  the  GEC-sustainable development-environmental security interrelationships.

Global change will probably raise the level  of  stress  in  the international  system,  increasing  the  likelyhood  of conflict and impeding the search for cooperative solutions. In addition, it  may force   to   revise   our  network  of  concepts  such  as  'state', sovereignty',  'national   interest'   and   'balance   of   power'.(Homer-Dixon,T.  winter1990,  p.3).  For example, climate warming in the Arctic may result in ice-free  access  to  its  seabed/off-shore mineral resources, the use of northern sea-routes, a change in human settlement/economic  activity  (including  fishery,  waste disposal) areas, telecommunication paths.

There  is a need to think systematically about conflicts arising from the expectation that future global change  could  benefit  some social  groups,  countries, or generations at the expense of others; from direct consequences of global  environmental  change,  such  as migrations  of environmental refugees or pressures to redraw borders in the face  of  changes  in  agricultural  productivity;  and  from long-range and direct consequences, such as disruption of ecosystems due  to  acid  precipitation  or loss of global biological diversity resulting from activities occurring within domestic jurisdictions  of single  countries.  Some  of  these  types  of  conflict  will prove resistant to resolution through  ordinary  procedures  for  handling social  conflict,  such  as  diplomacy  and  negotiation. (P.Stern, Young,O., Druckman,D. (ed.), 1992).

The following environmental security risks should be taken into account: changes in 'free' environmental services (availability  and distribution  among  countries is a critical issue), such as changes in seasonal weather patterns, sea level rise, biodiversity patterns, ecosystems (both marine  and  terrestrial)  biomass.  These  changes affect  the  economy  (agriculture  -  crop  yields  and  structure, irrigation patterns, pests, etc.; fisheries - food  security;  fresh drinking  water  supply;  industrial siting; energy requirements and supply, and development investment pattern) as well  as  the  social fabric  (environmental refugees, change in life styles and access to natural resources, etc.). These changes may lead  to  global  change related intra- and international tensions and  conflicts.

The  relationships between climate change and acute conflict can be traced back in history with reference  made,  in  particular,  to climate  induced floods and subsequent food shortages that triggered popular   unrest   in   Castille   in   the    fifteenth    century.(Homer-Dixon.T., Fall 1991).

At   present,  in  connection  with  global  warming  Canada  is concerned over growing demands in the northern  hemisphere  for  the biotic  and  abiotic  resources  since international competition for these resources - and  the  methods  and  rate  at  which  they  are harvested  -  have become major sources of conflict and negotiation. Controversies have arisen over fishing equipment, marine  pollution, resource  ownership,  and  territorial  and jurisdictional disputes. Population displacement is taken seriously  in  this  context  since conflicts  between  indigenous  peoples  and  forced  migrants could represent a major security concern  in  the  future.  (Environmental Security Panel Decides on Two Case Studies. Delta, 3,1, summer 1992, pp.6-7).

Global policy problems involve relationships between states, the need to manage domains that are beyond the political jurisdiction of states. Some  ostensibly  internal  problems  become  global  policy problems when the outside community takes a special interest in them (e.g. Amazonian rain forest, lake Baikal).

There  are  many  examples of environment-security linkages that suggest  possibilities  of  environmental,  in  particular,  climate change,  food  issues, water conflicts, access to Arctic minerals in a'greenhouse  world',  environmental  changes  in  the  Phillipines, Mexico and the middle east, ozone depletion to trigger instabilities and and security concern. (Dalby,S, 1992, p.510).

In the meantime international economic, political, humanitarian, and  even  military  debates  are  being  increasingly  loaded  with environmental  issues   that   affect   integrity,   identity,   and independence  of  countries  as  well as the health and well-being of  their populations, i.e. their security.

For  example,  biodiversity  issues  include the distribution of costs and benefits in using freely available germplasm in the  South for  the  needs of medicine, agriculture, and biotechnologies in the North to be later  sold  as  trademark  protected  products  to  the developing  countries  (the issue of the infringement of sovereignty by freely privatizing biodiversity as global commons within national boundaries).  Global  climate   change   management   includes   the distribution  of  CO2  related  liabilities  of  developed countries accumulated over decades among  all  countries  in  the  atmospheric global  commons  and  setting  up  henceforth quotas and charges for exceeding the latter. These  issues  generate  heated  international debates.

The two  major  sources  of  international  conflict:  first,  a human-nature   conflict   that   results   in  environmental  assest insufficiency (scarcity) at national, regional, global  levels,  and second,  acute differences (disparity) in environmental wealth among countries.   Environmental   insufficiency   and    disparity    are manifestations of new environmental scarcities.

The direct impact of these scarcities on population impairs  its health  and welfare and leads to human disquiet and/or displacement elsewhere. The indirect impact - perception of these scarcities  (as some   other   countries'   externalities)  makes  countries  (their governments) to seek abroad a culprit or an enemy to put a blame on. Internalizing or trading in ecoexternalities  becomes  important  to settle environmentally related disputes. The recent studies indicate that  scarcities  of renewable resources can contribute to conflict, and the frequency of such unrest will probably grow in  the  future.

However, what is important  is  whether  people  are  harmed  by scarcities  and whether political and economic systems could provide the incentives that enable people to alleviate the  harmful  effects of  environmental  problems.  In any case, the entire Middle East is argued to face increasingly grave  and  tangled  problems  of  water scarcity that can affect the region's stability. Tens of millions of Chinese  are  estimated  to  try to leave the country's impoverished interior and  northern  regions  -  where  water  and  fuelwood  are desperately  scarce  and  the  land often badly damaged - for booming coastal cities which can lead to bitter disputes among these regions over   water   sharing   and  migration.  (Homer-Dixon,T.  et  als., Feb.1993).

The following strategies for regional international community can be suggested:
 - the "think globally, act locally" approach;
 -  participation  in  global  preventive  strategy   elaboration (global  commons  management  with  carbon taxes, tradeable permits, global green fund, a global climate change  (GCC)  monitoring system,  etc.;
 - regional co-operation on:
 (a) setting up buffer stocks (an insurance policy); adaptation policy - creating water, food, energy, gene banks, e.g. making water reservoirs for regional use and access, management of  international ground  water  aquifers; arranging access to environmental resources outside the region;
 (b)   management of  GCC   vulnerable   ecosystems    (e.g. desertification, tundra changes in the Arctic);
 (c) regional monitoring of GCC and human response (perception, communication, analysis, assessment);
 (d) regional management  of GCC-related natural calamities;
 (e)   regional   management   of  sea  level  rise  (defensive construction, salinity intrusion in estuaries);
 (f) management of  GCC-related  international  tension  and/or conflicts  (negotiation   mechanisms,   environmental diplomacy, conventions, technology transfers, etc.).

Efforts  in  the  above  directions at the international level, especially, through the Human  Dimensions  of  Global  Environmental Change  Programme  can  be  very instrumental (Jacobson, H. et als., 1990).

Managing environmental disparity

National  environmental  security  (and  sovereignty)   can   be affected  by  three major factors (two external ones and an internal one):
 -  trans-boundary,  regional, global environmental change adverse impact on the nation-state' environmental space,
 - the use of international trade  for  overexploitation  of  the country's   environmental   resources   and    for transfer    of environmentally unsound technologies, industries, waste (the 'not in my background' - NIMBY - approach effect);
 -  a  country  becomes  a  source  of  goods and a sink for bads internationally,
 - environmentally unsound internal development.

International   responsibility   and   liability   of   states, enterprises,   companies   for   overexploiting   and   fouling  the environmental space (or ecosystems) grows in  importance  to  settle international  disputes and conflicts. Adverse environmental effects or threats on states can be accidental or  cumulative;  of  natural, human-induced  natural,  or purely anthropogenic (e.g. CFC releases) origin.

Differing    national    environmental    'potentials'     cause international  tension. Hence, a need for narrowing these potentials to achieve ecoparity (Perelet, R., Iakimetz,V.,1992).

Environmental   parity   oriented   instruments   (environmental resource transfer or access instruments) at state and company levels have   recently   been  given  greater  attention  and  include  the following:
 - off-set investments that allow firms to  remedy  environmental damage in one country by cheaper countervailing measures in another,
 -tradeable pollution permits that fix global emission limits for countries or industrial sections,
 - reduced import tariffs on environmentally sound  technologies, goods and equipment,
 - tax breaks for the use of 'green' technologies,
 -  more  flexible repatriation limits for income made from these technologies which could  provide  firms  with  necessary  financial break  to  enable  investments in more costly, green technologies in less developed countries,
  - higher tariffs or taxes on polluting products or technologies, with the revenues collected to be used to subsidize  the  acquisition of environmentally safe technologies,
 - bulk purchase agreements for a region,
 -  purchase  guarantees  by  bilateral, multilateral or regional funding agencies  which  could  underwrite  less  developed  country purchases of sound technology,
 -  an  international technology bank, funded by country pledges, could acquire the rights to innovative green technologies so  as  to make  them  easily  available  to   environmentally less advantageous countries,
 - an international center to settle  investment  disputes  could curb  restrictive business practices that block environmentally less advantageous  country  access  to  sound   technologies,   such   as restrictive licensing arrangements and prohibitively high prices,
 - debt-for-nature swaps,
 -  development  assistance  programmes  that  could also provide additional  impetus  to  green  technology  transfers. Some of these instruments  have  already  been  used (Transnationals, 1992). Their  efficiency varies.

Arguments against the notion of environmental security
 

However,  it  is  sometimes  argued  that  linking environmental themes to national security is  a  mistake  which  leads  away  from dealing  adequately  the environmental challenges already facing the planet. However, in this case security is narrowly considered to  be handled  by  military  means  which  is  often inappropriate against environmental threats. 'Defining environmental issues  in  terms  of security  risks  is  in  itself  a  risky operation... we may end up contributing more to the militarization  of  environmental  politics than  to  the demilitarization of security politics' (Brock, L.1992).

L.Brock warns that the concept of  environmental  or  ecological security  invites  some  second  thoughts,  not  necessarily  to  be discarded but perhaps to be used with some caution. He  argues  that security  policies  are  essentially  status quo oriented. "The most common argument against change is that it might jeopardize security. With this connotation of security, the term 'environmental security' would become a contradiction in itself, because ecological  thinking is static and specific. The contradiction can  be  overcome by  re-defining security to make it conducive to ecological thinking. However, in the light of  the  previous  experience  with  'economic security'  he  believes  that  the concept of environmental security -  regardless of intent - may be invoked to defend the status quo of the present world ecological order, in  which  the  distribution  of benefits  from environmental degradation is clearly in favor of the highly industrialized countries".

Furthermore, defining ecological interests in terms  of  security needs  could  contribute  more to the militarization of eco-politics than to a demilitarization of traditional security thinking at a time when  military  budgets  will  be  shrinking  substantially  due  to changing  international  threat perceptions after the demise of the East/West  conflict.  It may be tempting for the military to embrace environmental concerns as a fashionable field of activity. Or if the military   is   tempted  to  take  over  environmental  tasks,  then researchers should formulate some counter-claims. Whether  this  can be  done  by  first  referring to environmental problems as security issues and by then trying to give  the  security  issues  a  meaning conducive to the values of peace research remains an open question. (Brock,  L.  Nov.1991).  In addition, L.Brock believes that singling out 'environmental security' may place it over economic and  social aspects of security.

L.Brock  suggests that  the environment should be delinked  from national security. The issue to be considered would be social security or food security rather than national security.  But here, too, he points to various problems to be solved.
 (1) It  it were assumed that the environment is part of security needs, then the longing for security may be one of the major obstacles to the kind of change that would be necessary to attain environmental sustainability.
 (2) Indicators for environmental security are difficult to establish. In the case of food security, a certain intake of calories has been defined as demarcating line between security and insecurity.  But, with the environment, there is no 'safe' pollution.[this is a weak  point. First, there no exact numerical indicators of  when a conflict or a war may start but  military security is well recognized. Second, there are  norms - maximum allowable concentrations for many pollutants, etc.)
 (3) He raises an interesting point -   conflicts  among different kinds of security . He thinks that social and food security cannot  contradict, while ES can with them.  Then, environmental security may be viewed differently for  different people. The poor may  degrade the environment (to  lower environmental security ) in order  to raise their food security.  [But  different kinds of security can be related to different kinds of needs that also compete.]

He says that development cooperation cannot be defined away by referring to environmental security is a basic human need (p.32).  He  stresses that social relations cannot be  viewed as security needs. Security and human right lose their specificity if they are applied to every conceivable private grievance and public concern.  Establishing a hierarchy of security concepts, in his view, is no way out by constructing environmental security as some form of super-security encompassing good governance, participatory democracy, economic security, and so on.  In his view. one should not fall into a trap of claiming a new way of looking at the world while doing no more than giving new political challenges new names. (p.32).
(Brock, Lothar. The environment and security: conceptual and theoretical issues. In book "Conflict and the Environment."  Ed. by N.P.Gleditsch in colloboration with L.Brock, T.Homer-Dixon, R.Perelet, E. Vlachos. Kluwer Academic Publishers. ISBN 0-7923-4768-4. 1997).

R.Moss  questions  the  usefulness  of  using  the   notion   of environmental security. He considers its two meanings as he sees it. First, the notion could be used to call attention to the  fact  that 'the security of the environment' needs to  be  protected  from  the threats  posed  to  it  by  human  activities.  Second,  it could be intended  to  imply  that  threats  posed  by   global   change   or environmental  degradation  could  have something in common with the  sorts of threats of organized violence that are normally considered to  threaten  national security (Moss,R. 1992).

In fact, he gives preference to the first meaning.  However,  in this interpretation, the achievement of  environmental  security  is linked  with  environmentally safe human (or technological) activity or  as  he  rightly  puts  it  it  is  equated   with   'sustainable development'  which is different from the extension of the notion of security adding its environmental dimension. He argues that  because 'security'  threats  typically  emanate  from  outside a state's own borders, conceiving of environmental problems as threats to security is likely to direct attention away from one's own  contributions  to environmental  problems.  Most  importantly,  in  his view, that the instinct  for  centralized  state  responses  to security threats is highly  inappropriate   for   responding   effectively   to   global environmental  problems.  Reliance  on  market-based  approaches  to environmental problems will produce the most efficient and  workable solutions.   (Moss,   R. 1992).

M.Soroos  warns  that  the concept of environmental security is associated  with  a  tendency  for  security  concerns  to  lead  to exclusivity  as  opposed to universality as well as to all consuming commitment leading to the sacrifice of other values, and, lastly, it has an inherent bias towards defensiveness  and  protection  of  the status  quo. (Soroos,M. 1992).

The lack  of  different  words  in  Russian  for  'safety'  and 'security'  caused  another  complication  (e.g.  the distinction is impossible to make in Russian between 'environmental  safety  of  an industrial   factory'  aimed  at  making  'an  environmentally  safe factory' and 'environmental security of a region'  aimed  at  making the  region  less  vulnerable,  or  sensitive, to adverse effects of environmental changes).

The allegedly status quo orientation of the  ES  notion  can  be waved  because,  contributing to sustainable development, it is part of intergenerational, e.i. future  oriented  security.  The  use  of military  security capabilities to handle ecoviolence, ecoterrorism, environment de-contamination may be needed. In this respect military conversion  and,  in  particular,  NATO's  interest  in  ES  and  ES cooperation  should  be  welcomed  (NATO,  Nov.1991). The fear about possible  superiority  of  ES  over  economic  security  is   hardly justifiable  now  but  the  need  for  re-allocating  resources  from exaggerated (both  in  developed  and  developing  nations)  military security budget lines to ES has been there at least for the last two to  three  decades. If sustainable development is the goal it should be of socio-environmental kind (i.e. aimed  at  meeting  social  and environmental  objectives  with  efficient economic mechanisms). Two major kinds of threats (and two kinds of security to  address  them) would  be  given  prominence:  social  (ethnic,  cultural,  beliefs, perception and ecorelated disputes) and environmental ones. Military superiority  would  give  way   to   economic   and,   increasingly, environmental sufficiency development cooperation. The environmental protection  in  this  context  can be considered contributing to the achievement of environmental security, however playing a role of  its own in reserving ecological diversity.

Evolving the Environmental Security Concept

In order to establish the boundary conditions within  which  the world  community  must  collectively  work  one  needs to develop an analytical framework within which the linkages among  the  principle elements  bearing  on  security  and risk management might be better understood and  evaluated (Strong, M. 1989).

Two well-documented  and  deeply  analytical  papers  by T.Homer-Dixon  based  on  findings  of  the project on environmental change and acute conflict at the University of Toronto  (cosponsored by   the   American   Academy   of  Arts  and  Sciences)  deal  with environmental  change  leading  to  natural  resource scarcities and affecting environmental quality, primarily in developing  countries. (Homer-Dixon,  T.,  Fall  1991;   Homer-Dixon  T.  et als. Feb.1993). Methodological, conceptual and practical difficulties  in  surfacing existing  and emerging environment-social conflict relationships are amply discussed there. However, despite the range of case studies which was undertaken, the evidence for a direct causal link between environmental degradation and violent conflict remains speculative and anecdotal. (Global Environmental Change and Human Security Project. International Human Dimensions Program on Global Environmental Change. Draft Science Plan. April 1998, p.11).

In fact, environmental changes (in natural systems and flows) of natural, human induced or human-made origin  often  produce  adverse and  usually  heterogenous  societal  effects.  If   the   rate   of environmental changes exceed assimilating capacity or resilience of  ecosystems and the  resultant  residual  changes  are beyond adaptive capability of human systems they are viewed by humans  as  environmental  problems and  cause  concern.  Thus,  ecosystem  vulnerability is linked with social   system   vulnerability.   Since   ecosystem   and   ecoflow 'boundaries'  do  not  (in fact, cannot) coincide with boundaries of  communities, states, and regions, the unassimilated changes  in  the former  affect the pattern of environmental assets or access to them in the latter.

The  above  indicated  social  factors  of  environmental  change related   heterogeneity  cause  or  contribute    to social (intra/international) tension and lead to conflicts.

The   human   produced   environmental   load  is  a  major  and presently increasing source of environmental change and,  therefore, environmental security risks.  Environmental  security  of  societal systems  is affected by two kinds of interrelated conflicts: between the environment and humans, and environment related conflicts  among humans. In fact, the spatial growth and persistence of environmental changes from local to  national  to  international/trans-boundary  to global  has  produced  commensurable  environmental  risks  in human community   (from   individual   to  global)  with  added  temporal, intergenerational dimension.

Since   at   the   core   of   environmental   insecurity    lie human-environment  relationships  it will remain until the latter is changed. Societal conflicts can  be  quelled  or  mitigated  if  the common  understanding  of  parties involved is reached and solutions are found how to live under present or emerging environmental stress and ways are found of sharing its burden in an equitable way.

The  management  of  environment   related   conflicts   include environmental  diplomacy,  peaceful  conflict resolution approaches, international  regimes   for   vulnerable   ecological   flows   and systems  (stocks)  such  as  unique  ecosystems of tropical forests, Arctic, Antarctic, fish/bird migration paths, international  fishery areas;  use  of  converted  military  forces  to  handle  ecorelated violence, etc. Research should  be  carried  out  to  identify  key intervention  points  where policy makers might be able to alter the causal processes linking human activity, environmental  degradation, and conflict.

Parallel   to   these   efforts  mutually  acceptable  paths  to sustainable development should be sought in common.
One   approach  may  start  with  the  identification  of  major environmental problems, principle social effects, conflict taxonomy.     Environmental risks are mainly caused by increased environmental  stress  which  is  a result of population growth and environmentally unsound technological change. The latter is significantly guided  by economic  'rules  of  the game', environmental values, environmental legislation,   ecorisk   perception.   A   change  to  economics  of sustainable development should be pursued.

The  following  definition  is offered: ES is the protection (of sustainable  performance  of  humans and societal institutions) from environmental or environment related hazards and threats thereof  to
security.

ES   levels:   global,   international,   national,   community, household, individual, intergenerational.

ES hazards (threats):
 (a) scarcity of environmental assets,
 (b) adverse effects of environmental changes on human health and well-being, and
 (c) environment related intra- and  international  tensions  and conflicts.

Thus,  ES  deals  with  adverse  impacts  on  vitally  important human and societal functions and structures (flows and stocks) only, with  the  existence  issue  as  the  last  frontier. Among them are factors that affect: territorial integrity (spread of  environmental emergency  areas  due  to land/soil erosion, sea level rise), social integrity and identity (people's health and livelihood,  probability of violence or social tension due to environment related  population displacement,  settlement pattern change), sovereignty (uncontrolled trans-boundary, regional and global pollution/waste  pervasion  along natural and trade channels).

It   can   be  quantifiable  since  insecurity  factors  can  be identified, measured and monitored (e.g., drinking  water  shortage, sufficient consumption patterns, human and societal vulnerability in the face of environmental changes,  threats,  and  risks,  including changes in environment related morbidity, life expectancy). It is an essential  component  to  achieve  sustainable  development.

ES  is  distinct from environmental protection though inseparably linked  with  it.  ES  presupposes  the  provision  (in  particular, conservation) or availability of sufficient environmental assets (or an   equitable  access  to  them)  as  well  as  environmental  risk management. ES is also linked with  other  kinds  of  security  that jointly   safeguard  vital  functions  of  sustainable  development, including  the  concern  for  future  generations.   The   lack   of environmental  security  badly  affects  the health, well-being, and behavior of human communities at all  levels  from  individuals  to nation  states  to  regional  to  global  community  and  leads,  in particular, to social intra- and inter-national  tensions.  That  is why  ES  is  so  important  to  be handled at all levels up to world governance as a long-term issue.

The   system  of  international  environmental  security  should include a complex of principles, legal standards, action  plans  and strategies,    their    financial,    organizational,    scientific, information,  educational  and  other   support   aimed   at   joint elaboration of the concept of new environmental thinking and conduct of  states.  (Evteev,S. et als.,1989)

Thus ES is oriented  at  minimizing  environmental  damages  and risks because of humans-nature and environment related humans-humans conflicts through managing:
 environmental  scarcity  (in terms of depletion of environmental resources,   including   the  loss  of biodiversity,  by  achieving ecoparity through  acquiring  or  getting  access  to  environmental resources  on  the  equitable  basis,  creating  ecoresource  bufferstocks),
 adverse effects of environmental  changes,
  environment   related  intra -  and  international  tensions  and conflicts (resulted from the direct impact of the above two  factors and  excacerbated  by  their  heterogeneous perception by countries,
  their  uneven  impact  on  countries  and   regions,   a   differing contribution of countries to them, a heterogeneous national/regional response  and  the  capacity  to respond to these factors, including attempts by some countries or companies to manage the two factors by taking advantages of weaker regulations, knowledge, etc.  in  poorer countries),
 environmental risks (forward looking, preventive strategy).
    Thus,  the   management   of   environmental  scarcity  includes environmental  protection  measures,  sustainable  use of resources, and international co-operation on environmental resource transfers.
 The   management   of  environmental  changes  deals with:
 natural disasters and human induced natural disasters,
  unintentional   changes   (transboundary,    regional,    global environmental  issues,  transfer  of  hazardous and toxic substances through trade),
  intentional   changes   (environmental,   aggression,   warfare,     ecoterrorism);
  sudden changes - e.g. industrial accidents, cumulative changes -e.g. environmental chemical 'time bombs'.
Main environmental security threats come from:
 - outside a nation-state:
 - premeditated   action  (the  environment  as  part  of  military activity);
 - unpremeditated action  (long-range  trans-boundary  transport  of air,   water,   soil   pollution,   regional,  global  environmental problems);
 - within a nation-state: environmentally   unsound   national   development   leads    to environment related intra-national as well as international  tension and conflicts (e.g., that happens in the 1990s to Russia).

Therefore, matters of ES should be handled at the  national  and international  levels  by  special  institutions, e.g. environmental security councils. They should be able to make use  of  capabilities of   various   sectoral   agencies   that  deal  with  environmental protection, human  health,  economic  activities,  defence,  foreign affairs,  etc.  to  lead  to sustainable life-styles, production and consumption patterns.

The   following  dimensions  of  environmental  security  can  be considered:   socio-environmental   (from    global    to    local), international,   intergenerational,   interpersonal   aspects.   The cross-cutting  issues   are   institutional   (e.g.,   international environmental  regimes,  the role of NGOs, TNCs, public movements in decision-making, negotiations),  economic  (environmental  economics issues),   social  (e.g.,  environmental  values,  perception,  risk communications),   political   (e.g.,   environmental   aspects   of  sovereignty, democracy).

Proposals for Further Studies

Subject 1. Expanded notion of security

The issues to be tackled:
specifics  of  GEC  impact  on  countries,  environmental factors of international insecurity, case studies  of  environmentally  related tensions   and   conflicts   and   their  effects  on  national  and international security as well as traditional  sovereignty,  present Russia  as  a factor affecting international security, international economic  relations  and   environmental   security,   international environmental   security   strategies,   designing   a   system   of international security and risk management.

Subject  2. Environmental Sufficiency and Parity.

The  uneveness  environmental situation in countries, causes both internal and  international  tensions  and  affects  their  economic development  (meeting  human  wants and needs). It is suggested that there should exist a certain minimal level  of  sufficiency  in  the environmental  situation  that  should  not give rise to or advocate conflicts. Internal and international tensions could occur  if  this level  were  not  reached.  In  addition,  it is also suggested that extremes  in  the  environmental  situation  of  nations  should  be diminished  or  leveled  out  to achieve some level of international environmental parity above or at the sufficiency  level.  (Parallels are  drawn  here  to  military  and  humanitarian  as well as social security issues). International action could be required (under UN?) to meet the above two conditions which are necessary  for  achieving sustainable development and environmental security.

Environmental   parity  and  sufficiency  criteria,  indicators, techniques  to  use  them  are  to be researched into. The following levels of ecoparity are  suggested:  socio-environmental  level  (on global  and  local scales) to achieve global environmental security, international level for  international  security,  intergenerational level for intergenerational security, interpersonal level to achieve individual security and rights to equal environmental security.

A  UN  document similar to the UN Declaration of Human Rights may be  needed  in  the  environmental  area  but   more   operationally applicable  and  formalized  to  make  practical  assessments of the environmental  situation  and  and  its  disparities  in   different countries.

Research topics under the ISSC Human Dimensions of Global Change Programme that is complementary to the ICSU IGBP include the area of environmental  security  and  sustainable  development.  This   area stresses  that  environmental  security  should  be considered as an essential component of a comprehensive concept of human security. It raises issues concerning the organization of society and  the  norms that should guide individual and collective behavior. In particular, consideration of environmental security leads to questions about the interpretation  of  the  concept of sovereignty. How free should and could states be to take actions which may have harmful environmental effects beyond their borders for  future  generations?  Research  on environmental  security  should  analyze  the  prospective costs and benefits of various relevant courses of action in  an  unpredictable world.   Issues   involved   in   inter-personal,   inter-regional, international, and inter-generational conflicts of interest must  be explored.  More  attention  should  be given to how common resources have been treated and might be protected. The great potential  range of  costs  and  benefits,  many  of  which  may be unquantifiable in monetary  terms,  will  necessitate  evolution  in  methodology  of existing  fields of social science, including the development of new concepts for inclusion in systems of economic accounting, and likely the creation of new  interdisciplinary  fields  or  emphases  within disciplines,  in  order  to  consider  these  issues.  (Jacobson,H., Price,M. ISSC, 1990.).

Naturally, the environmental security notion cannot be static if it  is  oriented at sustainable development. Therefore, there should be  environmental  security not only for present but also for future generations. Environmental  threats  could  be  incorporated  in  the proposed  central early warning system. (South Centre, October 1992, p.19).

Environmental Security Study - Table of Content