JÖNKÖPING INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS SCHOOL

JÖNKÖPING UNIVERSITY

E n viro n mental Sec u rity

A conceptual investigating study

Master thesis in Political Science

Author: Elin Sporring Jonsson

Tutor: Mikael Sandberg

Jönköping 2009
Abstract

The purpose of this thesis is to explore the concept of environmental security. A concept
that have made way on to the international arena since the end of the Cold War, and have
become of more importance since the 1990’s. The discussion regarding man-made
environmental change and its possible impacts on the world is very topical; especially with
the Nobel Peace Prize winners in 2007 the Intergovernmental panel on climate change
(IPCC) and Al Gore.
The concept of environmental security is examined through a conceptual investigating
study. The reason for this type of study is due to the complexity of the concept and a hope
to find a ‘best’ definition to it. A conceptual investigating study is said to help create order
in an existing discussion of a social problem, hence the reason for it in this thesis.
The outcome of this thesis is that it is near impossible to find a ‘best’ or one definition to
the concept of environmental security and that another method to deal with the concept
might have presented another result.

Keywords: Environmental Security, Conceptual Investigating Study, Environmental degradation

i
Sammanfattning

Syftet med denna uppsats är att undersöka konceptet environmental security. Detta
koncept har gjort sin väg till ett internationellt erkännande sedan Kalla kriget, och har
sedan 1990-talet blivit allt mer aktuellt. Diskussionen gällande människans inverkan på
klimatförändringarna och klimathotet är ständigt aktuellt, i synnerhet med tanke på
vinnarna av Nobels Freds Pris 2007, med Al Gore i spetsen.
Konceptet environmental security är i denna uppsats undersökt genom en
begreppsutredande studie. Anledningen till denna typ av studie är att konceptet är såpass
komplext men även baserat på hoppet av att hitta en ’bästa’ möjliga definition.
Begreppsutredande studier sägs kunna skapa ordning i en existerande diskussion vilket kan
ses som den främsta anledningen valet av den i denna uppsats.
Resultatet av studien och denna uppsats är att det är i stort sett omöjligt att etablera en
bästa definition av begreppet environmental security, samt att en annan metod förmodligen
hade presenterat ett annat resultat.

Nyckelord: Environmental Security, Begreppsutredande studie, Klimathotet

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

Jeremy Rifkin, Biospheric Politics (Dalby 2002, p.1)

iii
Table of Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................... i
Sammanfattning............................................................................. ii
1 Introduction .............................................................................. 1
1.1 Problem Formulation and Purpose .........................................................2
2 Method ...................................................................................... 3
2.1 Previous Conceptual Investigating Studies ............................................3
2.2 Literature Selection, Critics, and Material ...............................................4
2.3 Delimitations...........................................................................................6
2.4 Structure of the Thesis ...........................................................................6
3 Historical Background to the Concept of
Environmental Security ................................................................. 7
4 Security ..................................................................................... 9
4.1 Referent Object of Security ..................................................................10
4.2 Security Concept and the Environment ................................................11
5 Different approaches to the Concept of Environmental
Security......................................................................................... 12
5.1 Insecurity and Human Security.............................................................13
5.2 Securitisation and the Copenhagen School..........................................14
5.3 Differences and similarities between Copenhagen School and
Human Security Approach ................................................................................15
6 Environmental Change and its Impacts................................ 17
6.1 Environmental Degradation and Violent Conflict ..................................17
6.2 Environmental Change and National Security ......................................21
6.3 Armed Forces and the Environment .....................................................24
6.4 Summary ..............................................................................................25
7 Analysis .................................................................................. 26
8 Conclusion.............................................................................. 29
References ................................................................................... 31
Articles .............................................................................................................32
Internet Sources................................................................................................32

iv
1 Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

1
1.1 Problem Formulation and Purpose

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

Specific questions this thesis will answer:

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

- Does environmental scarcity and change cause conflict between countries?

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

- Does a conceptual investigating study succeed at determining a ‘best’

definition of environmental security?

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

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

2
2 Method

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

This thesis will be based upon the conceptual investigating method to study the concept of
environmental security.

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

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

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

- Test whether one or more definitions is logically consistent

- Test whether one or more definitions could provide a possibility to

operational and could be useful in empirical science

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

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

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

2.1 Previous Conceptual Investigating Studies

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

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

3
2.2 Literature Selection, Critics, and Material

Selection of literature is always hazardous, there is always a need to be critical of the

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

The four rules are:

- Authenticity

- Independence

- Concurrency

- Tendency

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

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

Concurrency is more regarding the case of interviews, which it is important to acknowledge

that the more times that passes between an occurrence and its recording the less credible it
gets. There is an importance here to remember the more time that passes the more
possibilities for reconstructions of the event and even failure of memory (Ibid., p. 310).

Tendency is referring to the tendency of historical narrators to perhaps provide a

consciously skewed narrative of an event. Also to give example it is important to remember
or have tendency in mind when discussions arise between political parties as they too wants
to account a skewed view of its opponent. (Ibid., p. 311)

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

4
Before accounting step by step for this thesis selection I would like to present an idea of
criticism to bear in mind when reading this thesis and any other critical approach.

“A critique is not a matter of saying that things are not right as they are. It is a
matter of pointing out on what kinds of assumptions, what kinds of familiar,
unchallenged, unconsidered modes of thought the practices that we accept rest.

We must free ourselves from the sacralization of the social as the only reality and
stop regarding as superfluous something so essential in human life and in human
relations as thought...

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

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

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

In order to get an over viewing position on the concept I will use the Contemporary
Security Studies by Collins ed. 2006 as a starting point. However as the method section
suggests and as I hope this thesis will show there is plenty written with regards to this
concept. Part from the previously mentioned Collins (2006), the idea is to rely on five main
sources and enlarge the literature with articles and other sources as the thesis develops.

Main readings will include Dalby (2002), Deudney and Matthew (eds.) (1999), Homer-
Dixon (1999), Peluso & Watts (eds.) (2001), and Stripple (2005).

Dalby (2002), Environmental Security, could be described as to provide a critical geopolitical

perspective on environmental security which integrates insights from environmental history
and ecological theory.

Deudney and Matthew (eds.) (1999), in their Contested Grounds: Security and Conflict in the New
Environmental Politics they bring together a wide range of approaches and perspectives on
the concept of environmental security.

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

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

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

5
Since the Copenhagen School will play a vital part in this thesis, the writings of Buzan and
Weaver could also be viewed as a major source, hence an additional a sixth major reading
is: Buzan and Weaver (2003) Regions and Powers – The structure of International Security.

2.3 Delimitations

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

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

Hence, delimitations in this thesis follows a focus based on a conceptually investigating

study where what is of the greatest importance is to establish a common concept that is
environmental security. Therefore the delimitations of concern here is that it is merely
focused on an ideal concept and not initially the way it is carried out etc.

2.4 Structure of the Thesis

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

Chapter three will provide a historical background to the concept of environmental

security. Chapter four discusses the security concept and referent object of security.

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

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

6
By getting a historical background to the concept it is easier to understand where the
concept came from. That same logic is behind the positioning of the discussion of the
security concept and the referent object of security, in order to understand environmental
security we need to understand the concept of security. The fifth chapter presents a figure
which collects main interpretations of environmental security and makes it easier to
understand to positioning of the following chapters and segments.

3 Historical Background to the Concept of

Environmental Security

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

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

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

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

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

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

7
As noted, even with regards to the history of the concept, there are conflicting theories of
how environmental security has entered the discourse. The common ground the conflicting
concepts stand upon is the impact the end of the Cold War had in one way or another.

Historically the environmental issues have been on the international agenda yet it has never
been in the form we see today. That is, previously we have seen it in cases like in the 1940’s
where population and resources were on the agenda or in the 1970’s where main concerns
regarding the environment were largely linked with oil and resources. (Dalby 2002, p. 6)
Today, and with the Nobel Peace Prize winners from 2007, the Intergovernmental panel
on climate change (IPCC) and Al Gore, we see a turn towards more man-made climate
changes and the question of security in that. In addition this brought a reawakening to the
general public.

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

What CSS does is shift approach to security that is based on a desire to move away from
the strictures of security as it was studied and practiced during the Cold War and more so
make that move by specific means forms of critique. Environmental security could easily
be put under the similar label as the CSS with another referent object. (Collins et al 2007)

Given the broadened agenda of security or matters to be considered in terms of security,

the state could no longer be found as a legitimate singular factor that is the referent object.
“In the case of environmental security, the referent object is the planetary attributes
necessary to sustain civilization.” (Dalby 2002, p. 7)

Hence it is not all clear how the concept of environmental security have emerged
historically, and there are disputes regarding this. It is, as mentioned, clear to see that with
the end of the Cold War came an opportunity for ‘new security threats’ to make way on to
the international relations agenda. That is in no way to say that the environmental issues
might have influenced international relations regardless of the end of the Cold War or not.

However in an attempt to sum up how environmental security emerged and its history it
could be viewed as it emerged due to in short three reasons. The progress of a growing
environmentalism in developed countries after the 1960’s at the same time as the attempts
to contest the meaning and practice of security from an environmental standpoint, and also
changes in the bipolar world we have seen a shift in since the end of the Cold War. (Collins
et al 2007, p. 188)

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

8
4 Security

In order to grasp what environmental security is and entitles there is a need to describe
what security is and in what ways it can be linked to the environment and its problems.

As mentioned in the brief historical background previously the concept of environmental

security came to the international agenda by the end of the Cold War. The same could be
said about the discussion about the concept of security. That is the ‘new’ security that did
not in the same way focus on the realistic approach on the topic.

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

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

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

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

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

9
that war and threats to use force is part of what security stands for it is not the end of the
discussion. (Ibid., p. 2)

An absence of threats could be seen as equally important and the sub-discipline of

International Relations, Security Studies deals with everything from pandemics to
environmental degradation and terrorism the realistic approaches. What security studies
have done since the end of the Cold War is to bring back assumptions along the lines of
what it is to be secured and how that could or should be done. (Collins et al 2007, p. 2)

We need to acknowledge security as a critical category for making sense of the world as we
know it. But also in order to make it possible for performative political practices in which
have major implications for how politics is understood and organised. (Stripple 2005, p. 46)

In the same way Copenhagen School introduces the speech act and Barry Buzan describes
how to look at security:

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

It is problematic to define security, however as long as the conception of security is not

bound to mere state activities it could have implications to environmental security and
other items to be secured.

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

4.1 Referent Object of Security

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

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

10
explore such discussions it might be useful to explain what Critical Security Studies sets out
to do.

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

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

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

4.2 Security Concept and the Environment

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

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

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

11
5 Different approaches to the Concept of
Environmental Security

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

Figure: 1

Name Entity to be secured Major source of risk Scale of concern

Ecological security Natural environment Human activity Ecosystems

Common security Nation State Environmental change Global/regional

Environmental violence Nation State War National

National security Nation State Environmental change National

Greening defence Armed forces Green/peace groups Organizational

Human security Individuals Environmental change Local

Source: Collins et al 2007, p.189

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

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

The second interpretation of environmental security is explained through common

security. Meaning that the impacts of environmental problems to overshadow borders to a
common, for example where the ozone depletion is a problem or the climate change.
However the case here is not to say that the problems are common in the sense that ‘we’
are all equally responsible for them but rather that we are at equal risk from them. (Ibid.)

The four remaining interpretations of environmental security will be accounted for in one
way or another later in this thesis as they could easily be found more controversial and are

12
better if described in further detail. The reason is also due to the complexity in those
interpretations. We begin by examine the human security approach.

5.1 Insecurity and Human Security

The concept of environmental security could be explained as referring to a sector of

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

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

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

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

Where the concept of insecurity is in depth discussed is regarding the environmental

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

When discussing environmental change it is important to note that the changes in

themselves does not affect undermine human security per see. However, an understanding
of human environmental insecurity needs a larger scale understanding, “…past and present

13
processes that create wealth in some places and poverty in others, and environmental
change in some places and not in others”. (Ibid., p. 198)

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

5.2 Securitisation and the Copenhagen School

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

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

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

14
Figure: 2

Securitisation spectrum

Non-Politicized Politicized Securitized

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

Source: Collins et al 2007, p. 112

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

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

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

5.3 Differences and similarities between Copenhagen School

and Human Security Approach

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

15
 “While the human security approach offers an alternative to the securitization
approach, this is not the same as saying that human security can possibly, or indeed
should, replace the securitization approach, or for that matter security analysis as a
whole. Nor is this to say that security analysis can, or should, replace the human
security approach. Rather, each is important in its own unique way: one
contributing to our understanding of how security is practiced, the other – on
occasion and if successful – to its practice.” (Floyd 2007, p.45)

Both approaches identify environment as a sector of security, something that helps

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

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

16
6 Environmental Change and its Impacts

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

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

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

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

6.1 Environmental Degradation and Violent Conflict

According to Collins et al 2007 early writing on the connections between environmental

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

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

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

17
 Decrease in Quality and Quantity of Decrease in Quality and Quantity of
renewable resources renewable resources
Increased Increased
Environmental Environmental
Scarcity Scarcity
Population Growth Population Growth

Unequal Resource Access Unequal Resource Access

Deudney
Figure 3.1 Resource Capture Figure 3.2 Ecological Marginalization

Source: Homer-Dixon 1999, p. 74

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

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

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

“Resource capture occurs when the degradation and depletion of a renewable

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

18
 Ecological marginalization occurs when unequal resource access combines with
population growth to cause long-term migrations of people dependent on
renewable resources for their livelihood.”

(Homer-Dixon 1999, p. 178)

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

“Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio. Subsistence

increases only in an arithmetical ratio. A slight acquaintance with numbers will
show the immensity of the first power in comparison of the second.
By that law of our nature which makes food necessary to the life of man,
the effects of these two unequal powers must be kept equal.
This implies a strong and constantly operating check on population from
the difficulty of subsistence. This difficulty must fall somewhere and must
necessarily be severely felt by a large portion of mankind.”
(Malthus 2001, p. 11)

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

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

Before moving on to common critique of ‘given’ connections between environmental

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

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

states.”

 Hypothesis two: “Environmental scarcity causes large population movement,

which in turn causes group-identity conflicts.”

 Hypothesis three: “Environmental scarcity simultaneously increases economic

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

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

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

19
intriguing since we have more and more come to see resource wars since World War II and
onwards. However, it is important according to the author that there is a separation
between renewable and non-renewable resources, since states have fought more over non-
renewable than renewable resources. (Deudney & Matthew 1999, pp. 70-71)

Figure: 4

Sources of environmental scarcity Social Effects

Decrease in quality and Migration, Ethnic conflicts

quantity of renewable resources expulsion

Increased

Population growth environmental Weakened states Coups d’etat

scarcity

Unequal resource Decreased economic

Access productivity Deprivation conflicts

Figure 2 Some Sources and Consequences of Environmental Scarcity

Source: Deudney & Matthew 1999, p. 79

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

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

turn causes group-identity conflicts.”

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

20
Hypothesis three: “Environmental scarcity simultaneously increases economic
deprivation and disrupts key social institutions, which in turn causes “deprivation” conflicts
such as civil strife and insurgency.”

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

In order to sum up figure 2:

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

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

6.2 Environmental Change and National Security

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

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

21
Kaplan is under the impression that the language of wars with nature is not to be thought
of as new. However to link military metaphors of nature as a hostile force with geopolitical
threats to national security would lead to a better understanding of what is to be solved.
(Dalby 2002, p. 27)

In Kaplan’s words,

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

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

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

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

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

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

22
order to attain sustainable security. Possibly even in due course sustainable peace.
(Ackerman 2008, p. 87)

Ackerman finds that,

“International organizations will be the framework and foundation for efforts to

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

Figure: 5
That is described in
the figure, and
implies that sustain-
able security is
created by the inter-
actions of the three
green pillars.

Implying that the

global forces of
democracy must
unite to counter the
climate changes we
see around us.

That could be done

by combining and
put emphasis on
how the confidence
and cooperation
generates powers of
free and equal
elections, economic
interdependence,
and international
organisations.
(Ackerman 2008, p.
88)
Source: Ackerman 2008, p. 88

23
Hence the case that the impact environmental change has on the national and international
security is highly disputed. The disputes could be found ranging from diminishing the
national security to calls for a move towards higher unified actions among the international
society.

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

6.3 Armed Forces and the Environment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

24
Important to mention is that these impacts last well beyond the end of the fighting and
conflict. (Collins et al 2007, p. 195)

6.4 Summary

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

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

25
7 Analysis

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

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

Next step is to sort the different conceptual definitions, and attempt to find the core of the
concept hence also in what way the definitions differ amongst the explanations. After that
the objective is to test in part whether one or more definitions are consistent and if there is
a possibility to operational and if it is testable. Finally what the method suggests is that if
possible to determine a “best” definition of the concept. (Esaiasson et al 2005, p. 34-35)

The difference in approaches toward the concept of environmental security with the
soundest arguments is regarding what environmental change in fact impacts. That is
discussions regarding environmental scarcity and national security in particular. Before
dealing with those issues I would like to bring another aspect to the table, whether to treat
environmental security as environment or security?

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

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

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

26
different between the Copenhagen School and the approach of human security is that the
latter has no real analytical utility. (Floyd 2007, p.45)

What the Copenhagen School does is to acknowledge the environmental sphere as

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

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

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

He proves his point by explaining that the decreases in the quantity and quality of
renewable resources increases the environmental scarcity. That in turn could reduce
economic productivity, which might make the affected people to migrate to new lands.
These migrating groups would possibly trigger ethnic conflict when moving to new areas,
while decreases in wealth might cause deprivation conflicts. This migration and
productivity losses could weaken the state in developing countries, which could decrease
central control over ethnic rivalries and increases opportunities for insurgents and elites
challenging the state authority. (Deudney & Matthew 1999, p. 79) Hence what Homer-
Dixon presumably would voice is a need for the environment to be handled in security
terms, in the same way that Dalby does. The latter, Dalby 2002, claims that in order “To be
effective they need to interpellate existing social identities and articulate them to other
discourses in circulation and to commonsense geopolitical reasoning”. (Dalby 2002, p. 164)

Deudney on the other hand disagrees with this that the environment should be handled in
security terms. He argues that mixing environment with security betrays the core of the
environmental movement. He finds that environmental degradation is not a threat to
national security; rather that environmentalism is a threat to national security and its
institutions. Also he claims that it is analytically misleading to characterise environmental
degradation as a threat to national security, due to that “...the traditional focus of national
security has little in common with either environmental problems or solutions”. (Deudney
1999, p. 138) Finally he doubts that environmental degradation will be a significant cause of
interstate wars. (Ibid.)

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

27
and the security, thus the role of the military is slightly unclear. It can as is mentioned in
section 6.3 be the case that military and armed forces might even be causing environmental
insecurity and deprivation.

The middle way or approach that is as close to the best definition I get is something along
the lines that Buzan argues. What he claims is that security is not found at a single level of
social aggregation, but that has to refer to the individual, national, and international levels.
(Deudney 1999, p. 139) In order to make that happen it would imply that the global forces
of democracy must unite to counter the climate changes we see around us like Ackerman
argues. (Ackerman 2008, p. 88)

Hence the Copenhagen School presents a theory where the act of securitisation could
perhaps act as an analytical framework. That in an ideal notion takes the best out of all the
different approaches, and let that contribute to our understanding of the issue whilst the
acts of securitisation could make it possible to practice.

In an ideal world however this definition might be the ‘best’ one:

"In summary review: the ES issue can be defined as the relationship to established
security of those environmental factors--water, soil, vegetation, climate, and
whatever others are prime components of a nation's environmental foundations--
that ultimately underpin all our socioeconomic activities and hence our political
stability. Conversely, when these environmental resources are degraded or
otherwise depleted, so our security declines too. Thus the definition reflects
security in its proper broad sense: security for all, security for ever. However hard it
may be to demonstrate the thesis with empirical evidence, it is much harder to
demonstrate that the opposite is the case.” (Myers 2004, p. 5) (Where ES refers to
Environmental Security)

28
8 Conclusion

The main questions of the thesis were: ‘What is the definition of Environmental Security?’
and ‘Does environmental scarcity and change cause conflict between countries?’

To link environment and security seems a tempting idea, however it is not unproblematic
as proved in the thesis. A best definition of the concept of environmental security is close
to impossible to find.

Therefore my middle way is to believe that we live in an ideal world and find that, “...the
definition reflects security in its proper broad sense: security for all, security for ever.
However hard it may be to demonstrate the thesis with empirical evidence, it is much
harder to demonstrate that the opposite is the case.” (Myers 2004, p. 5)

A set definition to the concept of environmental security is not completely found. But to
agree with Buzan, “My sense of a security issue is that it goes along with a certain kind of
formula, that there has to be an existential threat, a big threat to something – a referent
object which is highly valued by a group of people – and that that combination of things
leads to call for extreme measures, or emergency measures of some sort. That to me is the
kind of formula for identifying what’s a security issue and what’s not.” (Buzan 2008, from
interview) Given then is that environmental security only when it directly threats what ‘we’
value, as it has done in later years, calls for extreme measures and therefore is an issue.

The second question is highly disputed with authors such as Homer-Dixon claiming that
environmental scarcity leads to violent conflict. (Homer-Dixon 1999) However some
critics would say that conflicts arise regardless of scarcity, and that Homer-Dixon and his
empirical testing is weak. Deudney as one of these critics claim that environmental
degradation is not likely to lead to conflict. (Deudney 1999, p. 138) Hence it is safe to claim
that environmental scarcity could lead to violent conflict along the lines that Homer-Dixon
argues however it is important to look into case by case. That is due to its difficulty to
interpret environmental issues especially since they are not to be perceived as objective
things.

There is a cry for laws and policies however it might be of greater concern how there is no
real approach to deal with environmental security. I believe part of the problem lies in that
environmental problems and security behave much like a disease such as cancer, where we
have no cure but only that we can know that it is there. ‘Normal’ threats such as conflicts
between states on the other hand could be compared to a heart attack, if we catch it in time
we know how to respond to them appropriately.

If research was to be conducted of the concept of environmental security and it’s utility on
the world as it looks today. Endless possibilities arise, even though as Myers (2004) points

29
out, that it is hard to demonstrate the need for the concept, it is even harder to prove that
the opposite would be the case.

So: ‘Does a conceptual investigating study succeed at determining a ‘best’ definition of

environmental security?’

Due to my inability to find a best definition of the concept by conducting a conceptual

investigating study I believe the answer to be no. Perhaps the more appropriate way of
formulating it is by claiming that another method might have provided another outcome.

However if this study would have succeeded and we would have had the theoretical aspects
in place and the concept was well investigated, it would have been extremely intriguing
what the next step, to operationalise indicators and thus induct an empirical pilot study, could
have contributed.

The nature of environmental threat as unpredictable and distant as it is might be impossible

to define, the question that needs more focus is perhaps whether the notion of
environmental security is needed at all. Especially considering that environmental security
has done little so far to solve the environmental problems we face.

30
References

Buzan, Barry, and Weaver, Olle, “Regions and Powers – The structure of International
Security”, (Cambridge University Press, 2003)

Collins, Alan, ed., “Contemporary Security Studies”, (Oxford University Press, 2006)

Dalby, Simon, “Environmental Security”, (University of Minnesota Press, 2002)

Deudney, Daniel H., Matthew A., “Contested Grounds – Security and Conflict in the New
Environmental Politics” (State University of New York Press, Albany, 1999)

Esaiasson, Peter et. Al. ”Metodpraktikan – Konsten att studera samhälle, individ och
marknad”, (Norstedts Juridik AB, 2005)

Homer-Dixon, Thomas F., ”Environment, Scarcity and Violence”, (Princeton, NJ,

Princeton University Press, 1999)

Hulme, Karen., “War Torn Environment : Interpreting the Legal Threshold.”, (Leiden, ,
NLD: Brill Academic Publishers, 2004)

Kaplan, Robert D., ”Coming Anarchy: Shattering the dreams of the Post Cold War”,
(Random House, Incorporated, 2000)

Malthus, Thomas Robert, “Essay on the Principle of Population” (London, , GBR:

ElecBook, 2001)

McSweeney, Bill. “Security, Identity & Interests : A Sociology of International Relations”,

(Port Chester, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, 1999)

Sen, Amartya, “Development as Freedom” (Westminster, MD, USA: Alfred A. Knopf

Incorporated, 1999)

Stripple, Johannes, ”Climate Change after the International – Rethinking Security, Territory
and Authority”, (Lund University, Sweden, 2005)

31
Articles

Ackerman, John T., “Climate Change, National Security, and the Quadrennial Defense
Review - Avoiding the Perfect Storm” (Strategic Studies Quarterly, 2008 (Spring), pp. 56-96)

Allenby, Braden R., “Environmental Security: Concept and Implementation”, (International

Political Science Review, 2000(21), pp. 5-21)

Floyd, Rita, “Human Security and the Copenhagen School’s Securitization Approach:
Conceptualizing Human Security as a Securitizing Move”, (Human Security Journal, 2007
(Volume 5, Winter), pp. 38-39)

Knudsen, Olav F., ”Post-Copenhagen Security Studies: Desecuritizing Securitization”,

(Security Dialogue 2001(32), pp. 355-368)

Myers, Norman, “Environmental Security: What is new what is different?” (Consultant in

Environment and Development, Special Advisor to the Hague Conference on
Environment, Security and Sustainable Development, May 2004)

Sands, Phillipe, “Enforcing environmental security: The challenges of compliance with

international obligations”, (Journal of International Affairs, 1993(Vol. 46 Issue 2), pp. 367-390)

Internet Sources

Institution for Environmental Security:

http://www.envirosecurity.org/activities/What_is_Environmental_Security.pdf

(2008-04-21, 13:00)

International Institute for Sustainable Development, IISD, (Environmental Insecurity

- Moving From Crisis to Sustainability)

http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2002/commentary_envsec_1.pdf

(2008-05-22, 15:00)

Online interview with Barry Buzan, ‘co-founder’ of Copenhagen school

http://geo.international.gc.ca/cip-pic/current_discussions/buzan-en.asp

32
(2008-05-22, 16:00)

The Norwegian Nobel Committee, the Norwegian Nobel Institute and the Nobel Peace
Prize

http://nobelpeaceprize.org/

(2008-05-05, 15:00)

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/scorched+earth

33