Securitization of Environmental issues

MASARYKOVA UNIVERZITA FAKULTA SOCIÁLNÍCH STUDIÍ Katedra mezinárodních vztahů a evropských studií Mezinárodní vztahy Securitization of Environmental ...
Author: August Haynes
0 downloads 0 Views 1MB Size
MASARYKOVA UNIVERZITA FAKULTA SOCIÁLNÍCH STUDIÍ

Katedra mezinárodních vztahů a evropských studií Mezinárodní vztahy

Securitization of Environmental issues Master‟s thesis

Kristína Tabačková Vedúci práce: PhDr. Petr Suchý, Ph.D. UČO: 273690 Obor: MV Imatrikulačný ročník: 2011

Brno, 2013

I would like to thank my supervisor PhDr. Petr Suchý Ph.D. for supervising my thesis and for valuable comments and guidance. I would like to thank to my family for their never-ending support and love. My biggest thanks would go to M. for his support and love.

2

Prehlasujem, že som túto prácu písala sama a všetky zdroje použité v tejto práci sú uvedené v zozname literatúry. I pronounce that I wrote this thesis without help and references used in it are at the end of the work.

Brno, 6.5. 2013

Kristína Tabačková

3

Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 6 1. Security studies ...................................................................................................................... 6 1.1 Evolution of security studies ............................................................................................ 7 1.1 Definitions ...................................................................................................................... 10 1.2 Goals and research questions .......................................................................................... 11 2. History of Environmental issues in security studies ............................................................ 12 2.1 Copenhagen school ......................................................................................................... 12 2.1.1 Sectors ...................................................................................................................... 13 2.1.2 Units of security analysis ......................................................................................... 13 2.1.3 Securitization ........................................................................................................... 15 2.1.4 Environmental sector ............................................................................................... 16 2.2 Beginnings of debate over securitizations of environmental issues ............................... 19 2.2.1 Three generations of environment and security research ........................................ 19 2.2.2 Historical overview .................................................................................................. 20 2.2.3 Proponents of the environmental security................................................................ 23 2.2.4 Arguments against considering environmental issues as security issue .................. 29 3. Environmental problems and their implication .................................................................... 35 3.1 Environmental issues significant from security studies point of view ........................... 36 3.1 Climate change ............................................................................................................... 38 3.1.1 Changes in selected climate characteristics ............................................................. 39 3.1.2 Climate change and security .................................................................................... 41 3.1.3 Climate change over next 30 years and its security dimension ............................... 45 3.2 Migration ........................................................................................................................ 49 3.2.1 Environmentally induced migration ........................................................................ 49 3.2.2 Drivers and dimensions of migration ....................................................................... 50 3.2.3 Environmentally induced migration and conflict .................................................... 51 4

3.2.4 Environmentally induced migration – cases ............................................................ 56 3.2.5 Environmental migration as cause of conflict ......................................................... 58 3.3 Water scarcity; soil degradation and food insecurity ..................................................... 59 3.3.1 Water scarcity .......................................................................................................... 59 3.3.2 Shift in water perception .......................................................................................... 61 3.3.3 Water scarcity and violence ..................................................................................... 61 3.3.2 Soil degradation and decline in food production ..................................................... 64 4 Discussion and Conclusion ................................................................................................... 69 4.1 Is there coming to securitization of environmental topics on the Security Studies field? .............................................................................................................................................. 72 4.1.1 Academic level......................................................................................................... 73 4.1.2 International level .................................................................................................... 74 4.1.3 National level ........................................................................................................... 76 4.2 Which environmental issues are in the focal point of the security studies? And: Why are in the focal point these topics in particular? ......................................................................... 80 4.3 What is potential direction for future development in this field? What is the prognosis in this respect? .......................................................................................................................... 81 References ................................................................................................................................ 83

5

Introduction This master thesis would like to provide closer observation of the environmental issues in the security studies light. We will shortly describe history and evolution of the security studies and afterwards we will focus on the Copenhagen school theory, which invented framework for securitization of non military issues. This framework enabled environmental, economic, political issues to enter security discussion as equal to traditional military oriented threats. Afterwards we will focus on the evolution and discussion within security studies about environmental issues as potential security threats. The main section of the thesis will focus on the environmental issues – specifically climate change; migration and soil and water depletion. We will examine environmental connotations of these issues and their potential for conflict. We will point to the wide interconnectedness, multiplying and spill-over effects that are crucial for the future development. The main section will be focused on the conflict potential of environmental issues. Discussion and conclusion will be focused on the securitization process of the environmental issues which is slightly different from conflict potential of the environmental issues and for answering research questions. Conclusion part will sum up whole thesis and show that securitization process have passed on several levels and therefore environmental issues are relevant and equal part of the security studies.

1. Security studies Security studies are sub-field of the international relations studies and they are concerned with the elucidation of the concept of security, its implementation in foreign policy making and its consequential effect upon structures and processes in world politics (Evans 1998). Throughout the Cold War security studies were narrowly defined in military terms and they mainly dealt with phenomenon of war and consequently concept of security. Security studies assumed that conflict is always a possibility and that use of military force has far-reaching effects on the states and societies (Walt 1991). From this realistic and neo-realistic point of view security studies may be defined as a study of the threat, use and control of military force (Nye Jr. and Lynn–Jones 1988). Concept of security has been defined many times; through 6

Cold War was defined mainly from realistic point of view where state is the main actor. We can see that different definitions of security are connected with state and threat to survival: National security may be defined as the ability to withstand aggression from abroad (Luciani in Williams: 2008); or Security in any objective sense, measures the absence of threats to acquired values, in a subjective sense, the absence of fear that such values will be attacked (Wofers in Williams: 2008);

1.1 Evolution of security studies Security studies emerged after First World War. With the focusing on the study of military force as an instrument of statecraft for promoting national security was security studies just small part of great debate about importance of democracy, international understanding, disarmament and collective security within the international relations. Second World War and the post – war period drastically changed international relationists‟ point of view. Despite this rapid change national security as a topic was marginalized until 1950s and its golden age came in 1960s. Throughout golden age the main focus was on the nuclear weapons, arms control, limited war and similar concepts (Baldwin 1995). The main question was: how could states use weapons of mass destruction as instruments of policy, given the risk of any nuclear exchange? (Walt 1991). The decline in the field became in the mid-1960s for several reasons. The main questions in the Security Studies were either resolved or came to an dead end (Walt 1991); character of the Cold war changed and the urging need to resolve security problems on this field cool of and Americans turned their attention to the Vietnam war which had notably different dynamics. Emerging of the peace studies also contribute to the situation where security studies stayed in the sidetrack (Baldwin 1995). Renaissance of the security studies became gradually after the end of Vietnam War. Improvement in Cold War throughout détente allowed other issues such as economic interdependence, or environmental issues to enter the security studies debate. Arab oil embargo was a sharp wakeup call that threats to security stem from non military as well as from military sources. The breakdown of détente and renewal of the Cold War tensions in early 1980s helped to bring the whole field back to spotlight (Baldwin 1995). Outlets for publishing increased with the creation of new journals such as International Security and Journal of Strategic Studies and there was an increase in quality of other publications in this 7

field. This is closely connected with increasing of financial support from both state and private sectors. Another important change happened with adoption of the norms and objectives from the social science. Security studies seek to develop general explanatory propositions about the use of force in international politics, and to apply this knowledge to important contemporary issues. They seek cumulative knowledge about the role of military force (Walt 1991: 221 - 222). With the end of the Cold War the security studies as well as other associated fields had to deal with the substantial change of their research subject. Nuclear threats were no longer the crucial topic in security studies as probability of the nuclear attack decrease. On the other hand constant presence of the possibility of armed conflict in the international system as well as new non military problems connected with the national security created opportunity for expanding; not shrinking the agenda of the security studies (Walt 1991). As Jessica Tuchman Mathews put it in her article Redefining Security “The 1990s will demand a redefinition of what constitutes national security. In the 1970s the concept was expanded to include international economics as it became clear that the U.S. economy was no longer the independent force it had once been, but was powerfully affected by economic policies in dozens of other countries. Global developments now suggest the need for another analogous, broadening definition of national security to include resource, environmental and demographic issues” (Mathews 1989: 162). Mathews expressed new directions in the Security Studies and defined debate which started already in the 1980s. This debate brought horizontal broadening of the security topics and according to Keohane and Nye (2000) there is group of equal threats which are on the same level of significance for the state. From the 1980s the main focus of the COPRI1 researches were changes on horizontal as well as on vertical axis in Security Studies. COPRIs research claimed that traditional security losing its importance and new security agenda will deal with social, economic and environmental topics. COPRI researchers claimed that besides traditional reference object – state – there are new objects – society and individual – on the vertical axis. On the horizontal 1

COPRI is acronym for Copenhagen Peace Research Institute was independent Danish institute which became government institute under Ministry of Research and Information Technology in 1996. In 2003 COPRI was merged into Danish Institute for International Studies. Despite this development we will use this acronym because is well established in the Security Studies.

8

axis where we can find sectors are besides traditional military and political sectors also economic, ecological, societal and cultural sources of threats (Wais 2009). Post Second World War period was clearly defined by nuclear and military threats of the Cold War. For these reasons it is not surprising that non military threats were not in the spot light of the security studies. On the other hand these problems were more - less constant part of the public debate. Environmental problems were part of the daily life and they were not connected or perceived as national or security threat. We can say that environmental problems became part of the public debate through Rachel Carson‟s book Silent Spring in 1962. Carson wrote about negative effects of pesticides like DDT and other chemical substances on the environment, animals and food chain (Matthew 1999). Debate about activities potentially damaging environment from this point grew bigger and wider. The number of environmental non-governmental organizations2 dealing with environment degradation grew through 1960s. From the International Relations point of view emerging of the large environmental NGOs like World Wildlife Fund (1961) or Greenpeace (1971) were interesting (Barnett in Collins 2007). With this development environmental issues found its way to international level. We can see several intergovernmental summits. It was in 1972 on Stockholm conference where United Nations Environment Program was established and building on this framework we can see very lively activity on the international level concerning environmental issues (Matthew 1999). Non military issues started to penetrate Security Studies in the 1970s. Lester Brown in his paper Redefining National Security in 1977 brought non military threats and environmental security problems closer to the security studies, but it was not until 1983 when Richard Ullman published his article Redefining Security and clearly connected environmental problems with national security (Barnett in Collins 2007). In this article Ullman tried to redefine threat to security in this way: “A threat to national security is an action or consequence of events that (1) threatens drastically and over relatively brief span of time to degrade the quality of life for the inhabitants of a state, or (2) threatens significantly to narrow the range of policy choices available to the government of a state or to private, nongovernmental entities (persons, groups, corporations) within the state” (Ullman 1983: 133). 2

NGOs

9

Under the light of relaxed tensions of the Cold War traditional military threats to national security were under pressure again. Ullman‟s new definition of the security threat began to be cited in the Security discussions (Dalby 2002). In the 1980s researches from COPRI worked on “new framework of analysis” in security studies and after the Cold War ended new nontraditional threats to security finally got into the spot light of the researches. New threats including drugs or failed states were in the center of the field but one theme was the most discussed and gathered most attentions through the 1990s and that was environment (Dalby 2002).

1.1 Definitions Environmental security concept could be very ambiguous which can be caused by haziness of the words environment and threat. Environment in its basic meaning can be defined as external conditions that surround an entity, but this concept is too wide to have value for this work. More practical approach is to use term environment to refer to physical and biological systems, as distinguished from political, economic, and other social systems. An issue is an environmental issue if it involves physical or biological systems to a significant extent. As Levy continues we should be very careful about the use of the word environmental connected to security. Levy argues that earliest works about environment and security considered all natural resources to be “environmental resources”. He refers to the Arthur Westing‟s research where he used this view on the term and became to conclusion that virtually every war counts as an “environmental” war, because natural resources of some sort have figured to some degree in almost every belligerent‟s war aims (Levy 1995: 38). With regard to this objection about the word environmental we could use the Stephan Libiszewski‟s argumentation. He argues that one should use this term very carefully and one should not use it to phenomena which are not connected with ecological feedbacks and equilibrium. Natural resources which are depleted over time and its equilibrium are disrupted, or systems where feedbacks are strictly economic and not ecological, should not to be considered environmental (Libiszewski 1992). For the purposes of this work we will use Levy‟s definition of the environment for issues involving biological or physical systems characterized either by significant ecological feedbacks or by their importance to the sustenance of human life. Natural resources not embedded in such systems (for example mineral deposits) are excluded (Levy 1995: 39). Definition of the threat is tricky as well. If we use definition of the Security Studies we find that threat is clearly defined in military terms and threats to security could be only 10

military. If we use definition from the opposite side we can use Richard Ullman‟s definition mentioned above which identifies other than just military threats. One could argue that this definition of the threat is very wide and basically everything could be threat to national security. For the purposes of this work as a framework we will use definition which uses Marc A. Levy in his article Is the Environment a National Security Issue? Which is following “A threat to national security is a situation in which some of the nation‟s most important values are drastically degraded by external action?” (Levy 1995: 40). To this definition we will add internal action and processes besides external actions. Internal actions and processes could be great threat to security as we will argue throughout the work and they are in some cases even greater threat than external processes as they could spread without control behind states‟ borders. This definition is quite vague but its vagueness provides us space to operate and argue for chosen environmental processes.

1.2 Goals and research questions This work will try to examine new threats which emerged in the field of Security Studies. Environmental threats are constantly gaining wider attention not just in Security Studies but in the International Relations too. Despite its growing importance environmental threat issues are still very controversial in these fields. The main theoretical discussion as we will see in next chapters is concerned with the questions about the relevance of environmental processes and its significance to security; our main focus will be national level, but we will deal with new levels of analysis. We will also examine specific environmental problems and connect them to the concept of security. This work will try to outline selected environmental problems as threats to (national) security. According to this goal character of the work will be explorative and descriptive field study with applying analytical elements. As was mentioned above Security studies deal most of the time of their existence with security in the strictly defined military terms. As environmental processes are non military nature as a framework for analysis we will use Copenhagen school in Security Studies. This framework will be discussed in the next chapter with more detail. The objectives of the work are summed up in the following research questions: Is there coming to securitization of environmental topics on the Security Studies field? Which environmental topics are in the focal point of the Security Studies? 11

Why are in the focal point these topics in particular? What is potential direction for future development in this field? What is the prognosis in this respect? This work would like to answer these questions and provide coherent review of environmental problems on the Security Studies field. This work would like to summarize current discussion about environmental security threats up to now and provide review about its development.

2. History of Environmental issues in security studies This chapter will focus on the particularly on the environmental issues and their position in security studies debate. As theoretical scope we will use theory of Copenhagen school that created theoretical framework for incorporation of non military issues into security studies that are traditionally based in military threats, as could see in the previous chapter. We will see beginnings of the discussion about environmental issues and there will be clear signs about securitization of these issues primarily on the international level. Closing part of this chapter will focus on the arguments from opponents. These arguments will be targeted on environmental issues and not on the general arguments to non military issues.

2.1 Copenhagen school In this chapter we will discuss conceptual framework of the Copenhagen school. We can trace beginnings of the COPRI into the first half of 1980s. In that period were good conditions for widening security studies fields. Researches from COPRI started to work on the new way how to characterize and conceptualize new topics and problems in international security. Particularly, they worked on the new concept of security which would be able to comprise even non military threats. We will use the book Security: a New Framework for Analysis from Barry Buzan, Ole Wᴂver and Jaap de Vilde who conceptualize this new approach to Security studies. As authors stated main purpose of their work in the preface of the book

12

“… is to present a framework based on the wider agenda that will incorporate the traditionalist position. Our solution comes down on the side of the wideners in terms of keeping the security agenda open to many different types of threats. We argue against the view that the core of security studies is war and force. … Instead, we want to construct a more radical view of security studies by exploring threats to referent objects, and securitization of those threats, that are non military as well as military. … Threats and vulnerabilities can arise in many different areas, military and non military, but to count as security issues they have to meet strictly defined criteria that distinguish them from the normal run of the merely political” (Buzan et al. 1998: 4 - 5). 2.1.1 Sectors To define security is very difficult. From traditionalist point of view security (in security studies) is closely connected with war and military term and as Stephen Walt says Security studies can be defined as “the study of the threat, use and control of military force” (Walt 1991: 213). COPRI is approaching security from wider point of view by using sectors. By using it we can spread out the whole into smaller parts which are more manageable. Sectors might identify characteristic relation patterns but they remain inseparable parts of complex wholes. We use sectors for simplifying and reduction of this complexity in the name of facilitating analysis. Sectors help us make inquiry simpler by using fewer variables and make research more manageable. We cannot forget that sector analysis begins with disaggregation on the more specific parts but must end with reassembly. This disaggregation is made just to achieve simplification and clarity (Buzan et al. 1998: 8). Copenhagen school uses five sectors of analysis: 1. Political 2. Military 3. Economic 4. Societal 5. Environmental 2.1.2 Units of security analysis COPRI uses the distinction between three types of units involved in security analyzing processes. 13

Referent objects are things that are seen to be existentially threatened and that have legitimate claim to survival. Typical traditional referent object in security have been state and nation, but this referent object is more hidden. Traditional concept of referent objects is not able to handle securitization approach and thus much more possibilities have to be allowed. Securitizing actors can attempt to construct anything as a referent object (Buzan et al. 1998: 35 - 36). One of the most important variables in determining what constitutes successful referent object is size or scale. Despite how simple this variable may seem it is very difficult to define appropriate size. Small group of individuals would be hardly considered as a referent object. They can discuss their own security but it is unlikely that their security would be subject on the higher levels. The same problem is with other side of the spectrum. There have been attempts to set all humankind as security object. But despite these efforts the middle scale of limited collectives has proved as the most accessible to securitization. We can say that state is still the most suitable referent object of security, because it suits the best to current international environment and to above mentioned definition. On the other hand, state is not the only referent object despite it is the most suitable one (Buzan et al. 1998: 36). From the referent object point of view environment could be interesting, because groups follow linear securitizing argumentation. The environment has to survive, which means that this issue should take priority over all others, because if the environment will be degraded into the point of no return then every other issue will lose its meaning. Sustainability for environmentalists (their more extreme groups) could be the same as the sovereignty in nation‟s identity so it is crucial to protect this principle (Buzan et al. 1998: 38). Securitizing actor securitize issues by declaring something – a referent object – existentially threatened. Usually we can see as securitizing actor governments, political leaders, or pressure groups. In connection with securitizing actor we can identify difficulty with the word actor. It could be very tricky to identify unit which is speaking on behalf securitization, because if we look closer on any unit in this position we are able to disaggregate it into smaller units proceeding downward on the levels of analysis until we reach individual level. This would get us into difficult situation in the sense that social processes are mostly understandable on the higher levels of analysis than individual. The best way how to proceed in this situation is, if we are able to identify individual, for further analysis is more appropriate to see it as spokesperson of the bigger entity. Word actor does not mean concrete person it is more identification of the entity which is securitizing. Connected to securitizing actor we have to be careful also about the words securitizing and 14

speech act. These two words could draw more attention to bigger or more powerful group and marginalizing audience which are appraisers of the act (Buzan et al. 1998: 41). So we have to be very careful in the identification process of securitizing actors and their audience, because this identification is crucial for the next steps of analysis. Functional actor affects the dynamics of the sector. Without being the referent object or the actor calling for security on behalf of the referent object. It is common that this actor does not even want to securitize the problem, because usually it is connected with its activities. This actor often influence political decisions related to security without any clear connection to referent objects, or referent object itself. Linking this actor to environment it could be company which pollutes environs (Buzan et al. 1998: 35). 2.1.3 Securitization Securitization is central concept in Copenhagen school. As security is understand as special form of politics and it stands above standard political behavior, securitization is in this sense more radical version of politicization which needs to be handled with special approach (Buzan et al. 1998: 23). Politicization is the step when the topic3 is moved into the political agenda and is dealing with the regular political tools (Emmers in Collins 2007: 117). When we follow line of Copenhagen school any topic could go from depoliticized into politicized and end as securitized. But there are no outlines which define which topic should move from one level to another; this process is more implicit and intuitive. From this framework Buzan and his colleagues set very demanding standard and that is – topic has to be perceived as existential threat. In this sense “security” is auto – referential practice, because through this practice topic becomes a security issue; not necessarily because it is real security threat but because it is presented like one (Buzan et al. 1998: 24). If is securitizing actor able to persuade audience of his speech act about priority of an existential threat so the common and binding rules and procedures are skipped, then we can say that securitization process was successful. Audience has to accept this change of procedure, so the securitization will stand on the firm framework on which unusual and special actions can be made. “Successful securitization then consists from existential threats, emergency action and effects on interunit relations by breaking free of rules” (Buzan et al. 1998: 28). Topic of securitization does not have to be based on the reality; urgency of the situation is coming from previous framing of the security terms. That is why there are different national 3

This could be any kind of topic for example social, environmental, economics etc.

15

threats for different countries. We have to focus on the fact that security environment is constituted by actors themselves and in that matter security has subjective character. From this point of view success of the securitization is standing on the acceptations of audience not on the author of securitizing speech act. That is why is important to grasp securitizations dynamics and connected processes because when we know where the connections between actors and on which basis are we should be able to influence interactions between actors and better manage edges of security dilemmas (Buzan et al. 1998: 27). 2.1.4 Environmental sector Environmental issues itself are very young on the international relations field. If we speak about environmental issues in Security studies we are speaking about really short history. As was mentioned earlier environmental issues appeared through the 1980s but as Buzan et al. (1998) says this sector is still very young and it is not clear which political structures will arise around environmental security issues. In environmental discourse nowadays are most active epistemic communities, social movements, governmental departments and international organizations but we cannot clearly say that these actors will play principal role in the future. What distinguish environmental sector from other sectors is existence of two separate agendas – scientific and political. The framework for scientific agenda is usually rising from natural sciences and from NGOs work. This agenda usually present a list of environmental problems which are, or could be problem for development of our civilization. The requirement of scientific arguments is exceptionally important in environmental sector. On the other hand political agenda is more or less problem of governments and intergovernmental negotiations and is based on public decision making process and political strategies concerns environmental issues. For this agenda is not the most important issue if particular threat is real or not, but if this threat and its importance could create political issue. Purpose of scientific agenda is authoritative assessment of threats for securitizing or desecuritizing moves, when in the political agenda it is all about formation of concern in public which helps to solve stated problems (Buzan et al. 1998: 72). These agendas are quite interconnected in the sense that scientific agenda is from time to time important part of political agenda mainly in agenda setting phase (for example UNCED, or UNEP negotiations). Problem can occur if bureaucracy of functional actors has to react on environmental topics regardless their opinion. This situation could lead rather to politicization than securitization. Second problem can occur if there is just prediction of possible environmental 16

problem and political sector has to react. In this case speech act of the securitizing actors is not usually followed by successful solution of securitization. This shows us that environmental issues are still not entrenched in security agenda. Similar example is complexity of this sector. Buzan et al (1998) identified six spheres of topics which come under environmental agenda. According to topic of this thesis we will list just four: disruptions of ecosystems (here belong deforestation, climate change, loss of biodiversity, etc.); energy problems (including depletion of natural resources, various forms of pollution, uneven distribution, etc.); population problems (population growth and consumption beyond the earth‟s carrying capacity, uncontrollable migration and urbanization, etc.); food problems (poverty, famines, overconsumption, loss of fertile soils and water resources) (Buzan et al. 1998: 74 - 75). In this sector we can distinguish two referent object – environment itself or one of its strategic parts, and achieved levels of civilization which is in close connection (or better to say directly dependent) on the environment. Human civilization is partially responsible for state of environmental conditions which limits or enlarges its development options and influence motivation to cooperation or conflict. These topics form lot of controversy and conflicts. Besides securitizing actors we can identify veto actors and on the other hand support actors. These actors are not rigidly set; they differ according to strategic thinking and established agenda. We can identify actors who are very active in one field but they are inactive in other. If victims of threats are not able to lead securitization they are likely to be support actors. These actors do not need to be in immediate proximity, especially when the issue is global (Buzan et al. 1998: 75). There are three types of relationship of threats to define possible universe of environmental security. (1) Threats to human civilization from natural environment and which were not caused by human activity (earthquake, volcanoes, etc.). (2) Threats from human activities to natural systems or structures of planet when the changes made do seem to pose existential threats to (part of) civilization (CO2 emissions, industrial emissions as a threat to ozone layer, etc.). (3) Threats from human activity to the natural systems or structures of planet when the changes made do not seem to pose existential threats to civilization (depletion of various mineral resources, etc.) (Buzan et al. 1998: 79). 17

We could say that most common security threats coming from second group. On the other hand threats from first group could be perceived as they are getting more attention in the environmental discourse and are more often object of securitization. But as soon as there would be some kind of securitization or politicization we cannot avoid the shift to social character of the issue and consequently to move from first group to the second one. So except of the undisputed natural threats we are usually able to identify “enemies” we are fighting against. In connection to this we identify two types of environmental threats – there are acute and creeping disasters. Securitization process in acute disasters is immediate crisis management as a response to immediate threat and is easily identified from theoretical point of view of Copenhagen school, because common and binding procedures and rules are skipped. Securitization for creeping disasters is different; in this case it is very difficult to defend securitization, because this kind of disasters does not happen all of a sudden and that‟s why there are usually other sectors which are preferred. But problem with creeping disasters is more complex, if they reach turning point there is usually no way back and consequences could be extreme (Buzan et al. 1998: 80). That is why is so important to securitize these kind of problems before they show. Securitizing process in these kinds of disasters is very difficult and has to be very complex and detailed; we could see problem of sea level in Netherlands as kind of creeping disaster. Approach of Copenhagen school to security studies and widening of the security topics described above allow us to define new threats to security, not just in military terms and not just on the state level of analysis. The procedure they are using to define what is security threat is maybe more complex and not as linear as in the past, but this approach reflect transformed reality of post – Cold War world on various levels of analysis. The problem could be definition of the threat through process of securitization. This process is lead by groups which could have different interests than just security and issues they establish as security threats could be lead by their personal interests. Opposite problem could be if there is small group which really face existential threats but this is not recognized on the higher levels of analysis. As the threat is defined as existential this could be another problem connected with this approach, because some of the threats do not appear as threats yet. Copenhagen school of analysis has its mistakes and problems with processes and definitions. On the other side this approach tries to deal with extremely complex problems and topics. Especially in the environmental sector difficulties with defining actors, securitization, veto and support actors and their actions and most importantly setting issues which should be 18

identified as potential or real threats to selected groups is more than difficult. Despite all these problems and difficulties with environmental problems in the security studies Copenhagen school provides us firm framework to build on in the field of environmental threats to security.

2.2 Beginnings of debate over securitizations of environmental issues Nature and environment is inseparable part of human beings. Throughout our history environment was natural part of our lives. With the arrival of industrial revolution our perception of nature has changed. Our relationship with nature was always more or less subconscious and usually targeted on new possibilities how to use our environment. Second World War changed lot of things and our perception of environment was one of them. We can trace lot of initiatives of protection to this period, but environmental issues became a reality for security studies as far as 1970s. 2.2.1 Three generations of environment and security research Throughout the short history of environment and security we can already observe three generations of researches who deal with these issues. As a framework for this analysis we will use article from Carsten F. Rønnfeldt Three Generations of Environment and Security Research (1997). Rønnfeld divides environmental security debate into three generations and clearly sets trends through history of this sub-field. 2.2.1.1 First generation Researchers belonging into this generation refer to interdisciplinary debate between academic and political community wheatear or not and how should be environmental issues included into concept of security. The first text who particularly dealt with environmental issues as security threat was Lester R. Brown‟s article Redefining National Security for World Watch paper (1977). Despite this article dealt specifically with this topic academic and political community did not respond to it, because it was outside of the both communities. As author of Worldwatch institute Brown was considered environmental activist. The first article which was from inside community was Richard Ullman‟s text Redefining Security (1983) where he called for redefinition of security so there could be included even non military threats. We can count more works about redefinition of security towards non military threats because that was main concern of First generation authors. Rønnfeldt writes about objections to the first 19

generation of environmental security authors but at the end she points that these objections are maybe too harsh, because they were criticized for something they were never meant to write. They were probably launched more as „political slogans‟ than as „analytical tools‟ (Rønnfeldt 1997: 474). 2.2.1.2 Second generation In the beginning of 1990s the new generation emerged responding to the criticism of the first generation by providing empirical evidence. A major representative is Thomas Homer-Dixon and his project Population and Security on University of Toronto. The main aim of HomerDixon‟s work was to base research on the firm empirical ground. Toronto group4 did case studies about specific states which dealt in some way with environmental scarcities. Their basic methodological premise was that environmental scarcity, as independent variable causes social effects and these causes conflict, which is dependent variable. Despite his efforts Homer-Dixon is criticized to fail prove causal connection and his findings are referred as vague (Levy 1995). On the other hand as Rønnfeldt states Homer-Dixon made great work by moving environmental security into stream of security studies (Rønnfeldt 1997: 475-476). 2.2.1.3 Third generation As the article is written in the 1997 we can just evaluate Rønnfeldt‟s presumptions. She presupposes that new generation will deal with more and more complex issues. The complex understanding will be emphasized and new levels of analysis will find its way into the discussion (Rønnfeldt 1997: 478). What we can conclude from reviewed literature Rønnfeldt filled her suppositions. New topics about environmental security are present in current debate and the new levels of analysis are concerned as well. We can also observe new ways in methodology and the whole debate is very lively. However we have to mention that the one generation did not replace other, authors dealing with topics and themes from first and second generation are still present in current debate. 2.2.2 Historical overview Protection and preserving initiatives were usually connected with aesthetical part of nature, but this changed with arrival of the 1960s and shift of environmental issues to political form. Concerns about depletion of resources, degradation and other problems connected with environment catalyzed in number of books and articles from which most influential was in 4

As was the research team of Homer-Dixon named.

20

1962 Rachel Carson‟s Silent Spring. Carson wrote about impact of pesticides on human health and environment and her moral outrage about such behavior. This book was widely spread and it started fundamental change in a way how people see nature and how should be relationships between people and environment perceived. Nature should not be regarded as simply raw material to serve human beings; there is relationship between nature and people and is more complex and delicate than previously suspected5 (Mathew 1999). Since then discussion about depletion of environment and its degradation grew bigger and wider. Emergence of NGOs dealing with this issues described above is just one of several manifestations of environmental movement. Widely-read works like Population Bomb (1968); The Closing Circle (1974); Limits to Growth (1972); or paper Tragedy of the commons (1968)6. These activities just underscored the global magnitude of “environmental crisis” (Mathew 1999: 3). Environmental problematic spread through popular books, articles and discussions and raised public awareness about scarcity of environment. The width of this phenomenon could be analyzed in more detail but this is not purpose of this work. Despite wide public awareness of environmental issues these did not become part of political debate until 1972 United Nations Environmental Conference on the Environment in Stockholm. It was in Stockholm where United Nations Environment Program were established and moreover, the centrality of North-South issues and the vital role of NGOs in the new environmental politics were both clearly acknowledged there (McCormic in Mathew 1998). Stockholm was framework on which one could build on. The next two decades represents flurry of activity on the international level. Negotiations over multilateral conventions about environmental issues addressing pollution, degradation, depletion of resources etc. were part of international relations reality. Another step on the way to recognize environmental issues as equal in international relations was when United Nations General Assembly established World Commission on Environment and Development in 1983. This Commission led by Gro Harlem Bruntlad 5

Rachel Carson‟s book Silent Spring is about environmental degradation and moral hazard connected with this kind of behavior. This book describes world without grass, trees and animals – with the natural expressions of spring – once spring the world will stay quiet, because of the degradation of environment caused by human activities. From the security studies point of view this book is radical. On the other hand it was not meant to be contribution to security studies debate. Author of this thesis mentions this book based on research of literature where Carson‟s book is generally recognized as one of the starting points in debate about environmental issues in Security studies. 6 Ehrlich, P. 1968. Population Bomb. New York, Ballantine books; Commoner, B. 1974. The Closing Circle. Toronto, Bantam Books; Meadows, D. 1972. Limits to growth: a report for the club of Rome’s project on the Predicament of mankind. New York, Universe Books,; Hardin, G. 1968. Tragedy of the Commons.

21

released report Our Common Future in 1987. This report focused on the interconnected processes of population growth, food production, energy use, ecosystem protection, and urbanization. It contained wide range of recommendations and proposals which were summed up into concept of sustainable development: it is development designed to “meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” ( UN report 1987: 8). This report was followed by Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 which is one of the most famous summits about environment on international level; that was followed by conferences about population and development in Cairo in 1994. Activities connected with environmental issues were not just on international level, wide range of NGOs dealing with myriads environmental issues on the local, regional, national and even on the international level proved that these issues are recognized as serious problem. As Rachel Carson is recognized as the first who brought environmental degradation as public issue Lester Brown is recognized as first who dealt with it in security dimension (Barnett 2003). He forged the links between environment and security. In his work Redefining National Security he argued that military threat to national security is only one of many other that governments have to address. These new threats come out from rapidly changing relationship between humankind and nature. Unfolding stresses in this relationship comes out as ecological instabilities and resource scarcities; as disconnection proceeds they shift into economic stresses – inflation, unemployment, capital scarcity and monetary instability. Ultimately, these economic stresses convert into social unrest and political instability (Brown 1977: 37). National defense establishment is useless against new non military threats, moreover they are extraordinarily complex and they usually could not be clearly defined if we compared them with usual military threats. To recognize and understand these new non military threats will require extensive analyzing and scaling of information about it. As Brown further argues “the purpose of national security deliberations should not be to maximize military strength but to maximize national security” (ibid.: 38). According to Brown there is enormous need to optimize National security. As well as dealing with distribution of resources and their depletion, unequal distribution and accessibility of energy and natural resources. These issues will be essential in the future. The need to cooperate will be necessary even between countries outside traditional alliances which will lead to new reality and environment in international system. Besides uneven distribution of financial budgets between military, scientific and research sectors Brown sees another big obstacle in the way these problems are perceived – not enough people sees this issues as potential threats 22

to national security. He proposes new definition of national security which was used by Franklin P. Huddle who wrote “National security requires a stable economy with assured supplies of materials for industry. In this sense, frugality and conservation of materials are essential to our national security. Security means more than safety from hostile attack; it includes the preservation of a system of civilization” (ibid.: 41). 2.2.3 Proponents of the environmental security Lester Brown‟s work for Worldwatch paper #14 is focused on the environmental point of view. He deals with the unjust distribution of food and resources between developed and developing countries. But what we cannot ignore is the security dimension of his work. He dealt with problems and issues which are until today one of the biggest problem in the environmental issues in security studies. He worked with extreme complexity and vagueness of these issues; problems with preferring military threat over non military issues in security; and he tried to provide new point of view through new definition of national security. As we will see further Brown summed up the brightest problems where most of them are still not solved7. In 1983 Richard H. Ullman published in International Security his article Redefining Security. He started this article with argument about the need to redefinition of security. He points out, that defining national security merely in military terms conveys a profoundly false image of reality. This image is doubly misleading. Firstly Ullman argues that it causes states are concentrating primarily on military threats and thus ignoring other maybe even more harmful threats. The second, it contributes to pervasive militarization which in long run could cause, or increase global insecurity (Ullman 1983: 129). Ullman is using the argument taken from Hobbes as a framework for his work. For Hobbes it did not matter if the threat to security came from outside or inside one‟s own nation. A victim is just as dead if the bullet that kills him is coming from his neighbor as it comes from an invading army. A citizen looks to the state, therefore, for protection against both types of threats (ibid.: 130). From this point of view states as protectors of their own citizens have to make security choices. If we would have to define these choices in their starkest nature we could say: how far must states go to, in

7

Lester Brown is recognized as the first author who connected environmental issues with security by several authors, for example: Barrnet 2003; Mathew 1998.

23

order to protect themselves against adversaries?8 Ullman argues that this and similar questions are not directly connected with military security and other than just military threats could jeopardize security. He further argues that security could be defined not merely as goal but as a consequence – we may not realize what or how important issue could be until we are threatened with losing it (Ullman 1983: 133). He based new definition of the security on above mentioned arguments9. Ullman pointed out to similar problems as Brown – identification of environmental issues as (potential)10 security threats is not often very clear and it could be very difficult to connect concrete issue with security. This reality makes it easy for opponents to easy reject or ignore such arguments. Interconnectedness of the environment and processes in it points to complexity of this issue. Processes in the nature are usually connected in the manners that sometimes we are not able to grasp the whole picture. This could be very tricky from the security point of view, because sometimes even minor interruption of the system could cause its disintegration and subsequently decrease security11. Important point of view on security sees Ullman in the vast difference between the threats to “national security” posed by nuclear weapons and those posed by catastrophic natural disasters. According to him nuclear disasters originate in human minds – other minds may initiate actions to affect the adversary‟s calculations of costs and benefits, of risks and rewards. There is no mind behind earthquakes and floods. They cannot be deterred and substantially reduced by any kind of human activity (Ullman 1983: 138). In his article Ullman identifies central problems connected with environmental security. Except above mentioned problems he identifies different perception of the problem from different groups. He points out that what one group perceive as problem, or security threat another group sees just as small inconvenience if they sees it as problem at all. This is not the case in military threats where threat or distress from it is always perceived as clear decreasing of security. Similar situation could be identified with the conflicts, or threats connected with other countries, even in different parts of the world. Conflict in Middle East could short

8

We could define several different security choices; for example collaboration with regimes who‟s values are antithetic to our own; cure vs. prevention in the foreign countries; etc. we could say that many of these choices juxtapose international and domestic priorities and we have to deal with it if we want to protect citizens. 9 Ullman‟s definition is mentioned in the first chapter, page 4. 10 Potential environmental threats are environmental issues which are not considered as security threats but they could be in the future, or if it is not dealt with it in present it could cause problems in the future. 11 Ullman gives example of this process on page 141.

24

supplies of essential commodities, which could be perceived as threat to security (Ullman 1983: 140, 146). Professor Richard Ullman was one of the first academics who worked with the environmental security as a concept in security studies. His article Redefining Security was very influential on the upcoming debate over this issue in the 1980s and is still one of the most cited authors in this topic. He identified the most aching problems connected with security: perception and relativity of the concept of security and his proposal for new definition; he pointed out to contradiction between military and non military threats to security; he dealt with the proportions of ineffectiveness between preventing military and non military threats12; and several other important questions connected with security. In comparison with Brown‟s text Ullman is not trying to decrease importance of military threats, instead of he examines several non military threats and shows its potential impact on security. He argues that non military threats are on the same level of importance as military one and governments should approach to them equally. He concluded that changes in this field are not very rapid “and while political will and energy are focused predominately on military solutions to the problems of national security, the non military tasks are likely to grow aver more difficult to accomplish and dangerous to neglect” (Ullman 1983: 153). After recognition of the problem by Ullman the discussion followed whether or not to recognize environmental issues as security threat. One of the most cited articles together with Ullman‟s is Jessica Tuchman Mathews‟ Redefining Security published in 1989. She started her article with notion, that there will be demand of what constitutes national security through 1990s. “Environmental strains that transcend national borders are already beginning to break down the sacred boundaries of national sovereignty. The once sharp dividing line between foreign and domestic policy is blurred, forcing governments to grapple in international forums with issues that were contentious enough in the domestic arena” (Mathews 1989: 162). Her article is not focused on the actual redefinition of the security as the Ullman‟s is, Mathews wrote about the processes, actions and reactions of the nature to the human activities. She drew very unpleasant picture about life on the Earth in the future.

12

Ullman pointed out to disproportion between financial support for military equipment and prevention before non military disasters. He argues that possible consequences are just part of the decision making process and there should be higher emphasis on the probability of attack – he uses example with possible nuclear attack to U.S. with possibility of large earthquake along San Andreas fault, which is according to scientist relatively high with 2 – 5% in one year. The probability of nuclear attack is much lower, he argues (page 136).

25

Fertilizers needed to replenish devastated once fertile soil; the loss in crop failures due to indiscriminate use of pesticides; dredging rivers that flood their banks because of soil erosion and similar problems are processes which threatens our present and future. As many other authors dealing with environmental threats, Mathews points out to interconnectedness of natural processes and very fragile balance which is crucial for future prosperity. She sees population growth as one of the most aching problem, because overpopulation is closely connected with resources demand which as a consequence cause environmental stress. This situation could disturb carrying capacity of the environment, which could lead to the collapse of the whole system. Another example is depletion of renewable resources. As nonrenewable resources becomes scarce their price will raise until it will be more convenient to use alternatives, on the other hand renewable resources can be more scarce than we think. Depletion of fisheries beyond certain point will never recover; once extinct species will never show again, and recovery to erode topsoil it will take a several decades if it ever recovers (Mathews 1989: 164). The loss of biodiversity has bitter irony in itself. Disappearing of genetic diversity is happening in the same moment when biotechnology makes it possible to fully exploit this resource for humankind. Soil degradation is another major concern. Overcultivation, overgrazing, erosion and salinization causing soil erosion has strongly decreased agricultural production and sometimes destroying it completely (ibid.: 165 - 166). These environmental declines can sometimes leads directly to conflicts; this situation is most common when the scarce resource is water. But more usually they just lead to degradation and depletion which lead to poor economic results and social unrests and consequently to political and social instability. Underlying causes of these turmoils are usually neglected. Instability and environment degradation are common reasons for migration and environmental refugees spread the disruption across national borders. Wherever refugees settle, they involved into labor market, they increase local demand for food, and raise demands for environment which in the end begins environmental stress from their original home; turmoils and potential conflicts are not very far from this point (Mathews 1989: 168). Mathews further argues about climate change which causes changes in regional climate and weather. This could be another great threat to security. Wide shortages in crop and extensive damages in inhabitant‟s possessions just demonstrate how industrial as well as rural societies depend on the normal, predictable functioning of the climate system. In the future these changes will lead to more extreme and more frequent climate extremes – hurricanes, droughts, etc ( Mathews 1989: 170). 26

Jessica Tuchman Mathews outlined very joyless picture of the world in the 1989. She pointed to the most aching problems of human civilization and its actions. She called for action to fight against this kind of insecurity which humans caused themselves. When we look at her article from present we can observe that some of her predictions were right. Migration and scarcity of some crucial resources – mainly water, fertile soil – are today reality. We can note the same about extreme weather which is one of the most aching problems nowadays. Despite the fact that Mathews did not offer any clear or specific definition of security redefinition we can see her point to the need of redefinition. Norman Myers is one of the widely cited authors in environmental security. He discussed selected environmental disturbances and problems which could cause insecurity, or threaten U.S. wellbeing in his article Environment and Security in Foreign Affairs in 1989. His arguments are similar to author mentioned above: natural resources like water and air are shared by everybody and not within nation borders; nature and its balance is fragile and everybody should care for it. The imbalance in environmental factors could cause slowing of economic growth which usually leads to turmoils or conflicts. According to him environmental issues present a novel and increasingly important set of challenges for U.S. foreign policy (Myers 1989). He analyzed environmental factors in specific countries and their impact on the U.S. The leitmotif of this analyze is interconnectedness of environmental factors and processes and its impact on the state stability. He argues that it is not possible to predict which factor will cause what and how these factors will interact among themselves (ibid.: 39). At the end of his article he concluded that environmental induced change will come, weather the governments pursues it positively or not and weather it arrives by design or by default. Through immediate and incentive action, the United States can generate a sizable security return for itself by protecting its interests in the global environment (ibid.: 41). Norman Myers pointed out to important dimension of environmental threats – there is no national division in this dimension and environmental degradation needs to be responded no matter it is behind ones borders or on the other side of the world. Abovementioned authors were the pioneers of environmental security. Proposals for redefinition of security by adding non military threats; environmental distress as an additional threat within conflictual statist framework; placing environmental change at the center of cooperative models of global security these were the subjects which stayed in the center in the beginning of debate. The literature on environmental change and its connection to security became after the end of Cold War so extensive that it is practically impossible to review it 27

(Dabelko and Dabelko 1995: 4). This widening of debate could not be possible without extensive new information about environment and its possible impact on security. More quality and more information about it moved these issues into spot light (Deudney 1995: 36). We already mentioned Brown 1977; Ullman 1983; Mathews 1989 or Myers 1989 who called for redefinition of security. This field is closely connected with resource scarcity and there are myriad studies and articles which focus on the theories which formulate conflict based on resource scarcity (Gurr 1985; Gleick 1993; Theisen 2008; Homer-Dixon 1999). Another wide group in this field is authors who write about resource scarcity and environmental depletion but they do not necessarily use term “environmental security”. What they do is that they are using elements of non military threats as regular part of modern conception of security (Dabelko and Dabelko 1995). Another group of authors is writing about specific segments of environmental issues from security point of view. We can find works about competitive relationship between humans and nature which cause degradation of environment and consequently threatens human well – being and prosperity (Pirages 1977; Myers 1993; Spillman 1995; Cha 2000; Amery 2002). Diseases caused by micro-organisms, environmental depletion and uneven distribution and accessibility to clean resources are causing even higher yearly death toll than warfare (Dabelko, Dabelko 1995). These issues are also very lively in environmental security debate (Prins 2004; UN panel 2005; Pirages 2007). Last but not least are the issues connected with lack of food, other resources and uneven distribution of it and population growth. These works deal with hunger and famines connected with lack of food, problems with distribution and population density in particular regions. The issue of depletion of fertile soil or its loss is present as well. Despite these works deal with environmental issues and threats to human security, they use environmental security vocabulary occasionally (Thrupp 2000; Gopalan 1995; Repetto, Holmes 1983; Pebley 1998; Ehrlich et al. 1993). We can identify several characteristic features in the vast amount of works in environmental security discussion. Authors identify environmental degradation as whole, or parts of it as serious security threat. Security threats do not have to threaten nations sovereignty, they can lead to processes which at the end threatens groups, societies and (but not necessarily) nations. We can also identify two groups of authors from military point of view. One group of authors identifies environmental threats as basis for violent conflict either internal or interstate. Second group of authors identifies environmental disturbances as threat 28

to local or regional human well-being. Despite the discussion whether or not environmental issues are equal part of security studies these issues and problems are recognized as real threat to national and regional security13. 2.2.4 Arguments against considering environmental issues as security issue Environmental security is not a generally accepted concept as we could conclude after above mentioned lines. Environmental issues are actually standing on the periphery of researches interest, or they are completely ignoring this concept. Proponents of traditional narrow point of view showed their opinion by silence, hoping that this issue will fade away (Levy 1995: 35). Authors which look on environmental security usually use similar arguments against it. Their argumentation is not as wide and diversified as their opponents. Because of this reason we will focus on the several authors who are widely cited and their work basically covers criticism of environmental security concept. Stephen Walt is one of the prominent scholars in security studies. In his influential article The renaissance of Security Studies (1991) argues about present position of the field and its future. He analyzed history and present renaissance but most importantly he argues about future prospects of the security studies. Walt noted that on the one hand there is widespread belief that ends of Cold War means that war threats will diminish; on the other hand he argues that war in Persian Gulf and unrests in other parts of the world says otherwise. As widening opportunities he sees themes and fields which are closely connected to military and war. Identification of potential problems within the security studies is closely connected with war and conflicts14 (Walt 1991). He sees future of security studies by following words “issues of war and peace are too important for the field to be diverted into a prolix and self – indulgent discourse” (ibid.: 223). Stephen Walt represents authors who could be described traditionalist (Tarry 1999). Wide group of critics could be characterized by Daniel Deudney‟s article Environment and Security: Muddled thinking (1991). He raised several arguments against environmental security in this article. The first of all is using the language which is traditionally used with connections to violence and war to understand and define environmental problems; he uses works of Lester Brown; Jessica T. Mathews; Hal Harvey‟s concept of “natural security” or 13

Environmental issues have received more and more attention as security interests in each interaction of the U.S. National Security Strategy from 1991 (Dabelko and Dabelko 1995: 6). The excerpts from various public officials‟ statements and public documents in 1994 – 1995 can be found on pages 47 – 58 in “REPORT”. 14 For detailed arguments see pages 222 – 228.

29

Sen. Albert Gore‟s proposal for “strategic environmental initiative” as examples. Deudney argues that traditionally concept of national security as opposed to national interest or well – being is closely connected with organized violence (Deudney 1991: 23). National pursuit of security differs from environmental problems and their solutions. As second argument against linking security and environment he uses four major dissimilarities between security from violence and from environmental threats which deserve mentioning: Environmental degradation and violence pose very different types of threats. Despite the fact that either may kill or reduce human well-being we have to recognize distinction between decrease in social status and between real threats to security. Natural disaster as hurricanes or floods can cause severe damages or even loss of lives they could be hardly considered as threats to national security. Scope and source of threats to environmental well-being and national security from violence are very different. Anything which is concerned with environmental problems does not reach to national level, and then the argument that environmental issues are matter of national security fails its own logic. Similar argument could be used with connection to international environment. Most of the environmental problems are hardy regional not global; actually most of perpetrators are from the same country as victims so it is logic nonsense to understand environmental problems as national security issues. Threats to environmental well-being and national security involve greatly differing degrees of intention. Threats to violence are highly international, production of weapons, provocations, minor conflicts and wars are usually quite clearly defined in one‟s mind. Environmental degradation is usually unintentional and as a result of long-term activity as side effect. Environmental degradation is usually not a goal. Organizations that provide protection from violence differ greatly from those engaged in environmental protection. Organizations which provide military protection are secretive, highly organized and hierarchical and centralized; they focus on one particular goal-destroy and kill adversaries. Organizations who responses to environmental degradation are opposite, they engage masses they are not focusing on particular problems they are dealing with whole, because everything have to be reformed (Deudney 1991: 24). There is another problem where environmental security misses logic. In this case Deudney uses argumentation from historian Michael Howard who claim, that selfconsciousness of nation implies a sense of differentiation from other communities and the moment which is most valuable in this respect is conflict and triumph over other groups. He adds that it is actually very difficult to create self-consciousness without war (Deudney 1991: 30

24) Environmental issues do not have concept of war, or conflict in itself, they are not defined by it, so from this point of view it would be very difficult to create common sense of inclusion. Concept of nation is profoundly defined by “us against them” thinking. In contrast environmental issues are defined by “we”. This way of thinking could possibly undercuts the sense of community, global community respectively that may be necessary to resolve the problem (ibid.: 25). Environmental security is therefore concept which is hard to grip from the security concept point of view. The last big objection to concept of environmental security is directed to resource wars. Usual premise speaks about resource depletion or insufficient access to resources as cause of conflict. Deudney points to the nations without sufficient access to the resources which invade other countries to gain more resources, but in present world trade system resource dependency is no longer a potential threat. Contemporary states routinely gain their need through global market, without the need to control territory with resources (Deudney1991: 25). Deudney speaks about resource scarcity as foundation for conflicts. On the typical cases of resource conflicts – water, poverty, power and pollution – he points to arguments against inception of these conflicts in environmental degradation and shows other causes. At the end Deudney pointed out that “ecological degradation is not threat to national security; rather environmentalism is a threat to national security attitudes and institutions” (ibid.:28). Daniel Deudney pointed to several aching problems in environmental security which is widely used. Another significant criticism is from group of authors who consider the concept of environmental security as inadequately wide and vague. Nina Grᴂger in her article Environmental Security? (1996) speaks about the relevance of the concept. She found out that there is cognitive linkage between the environment and security and this linkage is interesting mainly for mainstream politicians. Environmental security is mostly politically attractive slogan. Securitization of environmental problems could represent militarization of our thinking about our relationship with environment. Traditional logic of security involves “somebody” who is initiator of threats, if this “somebody” is environment then nations should targeted their own territory, or should choose between the withdrawing or responding to this situation15.

15

According to Grᴂger this could represent developing and developed states – cheap and quick industrialization or environmental protection (1996: 111).

31

The weightiest argument against securitization of environmental issues Grᴂger uses is linkage between security and the state. As the environmental problems are interconnected they should be posed on the regional or global level and it should be focusing on individuals and not states. In this case decisions made by one state affect other bordering states in the same region. Without international or supranational law states cannot protect themselves from negative impact of environmental degradation in other states. Treaties which deal with environmental issues failed to acknowledge this reality and therefore are weak in compliance or enforcement. The increasingly transboundary character of these problems makes it hardly possible to fulfill or maintain security of the environment or fit into the state-centered national security (Grᴂger 1996: 111 - 112). Concept of environmental security ranges from positive/negative impact of industrial activities, technology, peace, or military operations to strategies about nature conservation to sustainability. This concept is too wide to have evaluative value. “If defined too broadly environmental security risks the same destiny as the concept of “sustainable development” “ (Grᴂger 1996: 113). We can observe similar problem with the word “environmental” (Libiszewski 1992). We could link the problems with definition to the difficulties with comprehensive and multilevel nature of environmental problems. Some of them are global and therefore need to be addressed on the global level; some of them are regional and local and need completely different set of solutions. The issues with the definition and localization are closely connected with problems with definition of security, because the concept is too wide as well as too narrow and the same is valid for levels of analysis. This objection to environmental security is more than vivid in the critique works and in the works of defenders as well. In the 1995 International Security published Marc A. Levy‟s article Is the Environment a National Security Issue? where Levy analyzes the concept and works about importance of environmental security. His first objections aim to example of resource scarcity, resource conflicts respectively. Resource conflicts are one of the widest cited examples of environmental issues transformed into security reality. Levy does not argue that regional conflicts16 are not induced by environmental depletion, he argues that the whole field of security studies were neglecting regional conflict issues and therefore scholars do not know

16

Levy uses examples of regional conflicts because resource conflicts are usually regional, we can say the same about conflicts which are usually used as examples for environmentally induced conflicts- most common are resource wars in this respect.

32

much about environment causing conflict because they do not know much about what causes regional conflicts overall (Levy 1995: 37). Jessica T. Mathews and Norman Myers wrote about our intimate connection to the nature so its depletion should be our biggest concern, but they wrote about it in a manner which is inappropriate. Their argumentation has no theoretical framework and their statements are highly rhetorical. According to Levy Mathews did not try to write about environment in instrumental terms rather she used rhetorical approach stating that environment is such a vital component of (U.S.) national security which cannot be separated from the other (Levy 1995: 42). In her article Mathews did not use security vocabulary rather she just pointed to the environment as most important and most endangered part of human reality for which is crucial to protects it. Levy sees similar rhetoric in the Myers article as well. Myers differs from Mathews in a way that he points to particular environmental problems and degradation but he failed to provide any solutions or directions how to approach these threats. Levy notes that he offered some remedies but “they were vague and ad hoc” (ibid.:42). He points to other authors who used similar arguments and concludes that these authors examined individual environmental problem in their own terms which is inadequate and the whole new thinking about security is needed, because otherwise the consequences will be devastating. Another argument which Levy uses is that the existential view of environment as a security issue is too blunt an instrument to create appropriate policy responses. Because it is almost impossible to do the calculation of environmental threats and costliness of response strategies it discourages discussion about which environmental problems are serious and which are trivial. This line of thinking could take us to extreme situation when any problem which is international and environmental should be considered as security problem (Levy 1995: 45). He sees contradiction even between attention to already existing and potential environmental degradation. The first one is usually perceived as security threat and despite it receives least attention; on the other hand potential environmental degradation is usually in the center of focus. Levy points to the most common argument among critics-selection of environmental problems which are perceived as potential or declared security threat. This objection is very common and it is connected to other issues17.

17

Primarily to local/regional versus global character of threats and what level of analysis should be used with connection to environmental issues: individual, national or global? Should we work with already declared problems or should we use preliminary caution?

33

Levy also commented on the Homer-Dixon18 widely known research about violent conflicts connected to environmental degradation. According to Levy Homer-Dixon‟s research “offers more anecdotes, but not more understanding. Moreover, in many of these illustrations environmental factors are playing fairly uninteresting analytical roles. “In many cases they are simply the scarce resource over which conflict is waged” (Levy 1995: 56). Levy concludes his article with statement that environmental problems which have security implications do so through indirect processes, they are just part of causes of violent conflicts. But if we want to respond more effectively to these problems we need to learn more about regional and civil conflicts, environment is just part of many causes (ibid.: 61). Marc Levy uses similar set of arguments in another article, where he argues that researchers dealing with environmental issues see reality as they would like to, not the way it really is. Environmental problems are just small part of factors which spawn violent conflict, they may be standing at the beginning but by the time researches come to the end there have been added so many other variables that it is almost impossible to see environmental degradation as main cause. According to Levy environmental issues should be considered as serious threats, but they should not be considered as central cause of violent conflict (Levy 1995). Maybe the most surprising group of environmental security critics is environmentalists themselves. Critique does not mean environmentalists do not see environmental degradation as threat; on the other hand securitizing steps are not so welcomed as one would guess. Many environmentalists think about environmental depletion and fighting against it as very dynamic process which is cooperative, not competitive and should proceed through collective decisionmaking. Securitization through entering new members from other areas – especially from military may destroy fundamental ideas of environmentalism and destroy whole field (Martinovsky 2011; Dabelko and Dabelko 1995). The discussion about environmental security is very lively. We have to admit that is more alive between proponents of the concept, but this is probably result of the very clearly stated objections and coherent thinking from the critics. As we could see throughout time debate has changed but we can still see wide scale of opinions and arguments. Environmental issues currently in the spotlight are usually connected with the water, population growth and unequal distribution of resources. Author of this thesis thinks that current debate reflects the whole complexity of the environmental problems – it is dealing with whole range of 18

Homer-Dixon, Thomas F. 1991. “On the Threshold: Environmental Changes as Causes of Acute Conflict.” International Security, 16 (fall): 76 – 116.

34

problems, potential problem, all level of analysis and we can find works range from highly professional and academic to highly alarming and motivating. Author thinks that both sides of the debate have proved their point and both of them raised relevant arguments. For the future uses of this work we will incline to the proponents of the environmental security, but we will examine even arguments from critiques camp.

3. Environmental problems and their implication Environmental degradation is part of human evolution from very beginning. As civilizations grew their impact on surrounding environment was greater19. But it was not until 20th century when people started to realize their negative impact on environment with all complexes of its consequences. With the great development after Second World War in every aspect – chemistry, biology, genetics, etc. people started to realize that their impact on the environment could be devastative. Degradation of environment through chemicals and pesticides like DDT; extensive deforestation; soil degradation and shortages in food production20 were one of the most cited problems. As new problems emerged and new topics as human insecurity, equality and right to quality environment became part of the public debate environmental degradation and depletion were getting more into the discussions. Building on the legacy of Stockholm Conference (1972) more than two hundred multilateral agreements have been negotiated for example about climate change, sea pollution, protection of fauna and flora, the use of nuclear materials, the military use of environmental modification techniques, etc. (Mathew 1999). With more and more environmental connected problems were arising this issues was getting more and more attention. After the end of the Cold War new points of view on the security have risen. New and unexpected environmental problems are still appearing and nowadays there is huge amount of issues which are considered as environmental problems. This situation is connected with very specific nature of this kind of problems. They range from global problems – as climate change, non-renewable resource deletion, unequal distribution of scarce resources – to local problems such as soil depletion and erosion, local floods, loss of biodiversity, or anthropogenic pollution related to local environmental degradation. We can 19

As an example we can provide ancient civilizations as Phoenicia or Greek civilization which overused their natural resources and caused appearance of Negev desert, or extensive deforestation in Greek, Rome Empire respectively which caused arid environment. 20 There is extensive literature which examines impact of so called Green revolution on overall food production in respective regions.

35

find environmental problems threatening security on every level of analysis from international – climate change problems; through national – resource depletion; to institutional – specific regions with specific environmental issues; to individual – accessibility of food supplies. The amount of environmental issues is so extensive nowadays that is almost impossible to define what exactly environmental problem is. This situation makes it almost unfeasible to define and work more coherently with environmental security concept. So for the coming chapter we will work with concept of environmental threats to security21 on the national, regional level respectively22 and we will argue about specific environmental problems which connection to security is relevant.

3.1 Environmental issues significant from security studies point of view Overwhelming amount of environmental issues makes any further division very difficult. But if we use security studies lenses we could identify issues which are relevant from security point of view. There are several environmental problems which became permanent part of security discussion. As most significant and most cited we could quote deforestation, overpopulation, migration, water shortages, soil erosion resource shortages and climate change. This list is not complete and definite, just because particularity of environmental issues. When we look at environmental issue alone it could seem harmless and we would be right. These issues are usually connected one to other and they are multiplying themselves. Another not less important argument connected with these environmental problems is spillover effects. Deforestation could be considered as harmless standing alone, but when we connect it with overpopulation and extended usage of resources and environment we could consider it as very dangerous. Let us give an example of these effects. We will start with overpopulation in our case. Overpopulation in some regions is quite common, especially for developing countries. Most people are still living in rural areas and they are getting their livelihood from surrounding environment. But with the rising amount of people in the area demands to environment are rising as well. This usually leads to more intense forestry. People are using wood for energy and for building shelters and they sell rest of the wood to have some income. We could see nothing wrong about this kind of management, but if we add 21

We defined concept of security and environment in the introduction. The main focus will be on the national level of analysis, but as we will argue later some environmental problems are local or regional but their consequences could harm or threaten security of the whole state. 22

36

growing population the whole picture will change. Because people are burning the remains of wood and forest on the sites where they chopped trees so they could produce arable land there, the ash from burned forest is nourishing soil which is as consequence more fertile. More fertile soil means more food produced so the population in incriminate region will rise. But the high productivity could stand just for short period of time, this situation consequently and gradually leads into resource shortages. We could identify three kinds of shortages – food (degradation of soil leads to shortages of production); space (with the growing population new space is needed) and wood (with more people there is need for more wood for energy, shelters, etc.). Original deforestation is multiplied by population growth because there is more intense demand for more resources. This multiplied deforestation leads to degradation of local environment and depletion of resources. As consequence of extensive usage of soil this leads to its erosion and reduction of fertility. Change in local environment – from woods into agricultural land – could lead to water shortages from changed water cycle. These shortages even multiply shortages of other resources – wood, food, water, etc. as the population in incriminate location still rises there would be no enough resources for the whole population. These people have just two possibilities, they would either widen the deforested area, or they would migrate to another locality. This is zero-sum game because widening of the inhabitable and arable land just increases the impact in the future and migration would lead to other problems. Migration could be heading into cities where the probability of finding living is higher, but the probability of finding living there decrease with increase of migrants. Migration could lead to surrounding states where better living conditions are. Both types of migration could cause tensions and instability, because inhabitants of respected areas could feel threatened by migrants. If the carrying capacities of environment or resources are not able to endure these pressures the probability of riots or even conflicts is quite high. This example is just rough outline what could happen. Environmental issues could be very dangerous if they are considered alone and multiplier and spill-over effects could play important role in this field. There are several authors who deal with resource shortages as cause of violent conflict23 and even more authors point out to multiplier and spill-over effects. On the other hand not each environmental issue could be linked to other issues into the spiral which could lead into conflict. As Simon Dalby (2002) and other authors point out there is no clear connection that these spirals are happening. As was argued earlier in this thesis, they

23

Most cited and widely known are case studies of Homer-Dixon and his team.

37

argue that environmental issues are not the only cause of conflict, they could be sometimes (hardly) marked as one of the causes, but they are not the only cause. What we can and we will further argue that there are certain environmental issues which are considered as threats and potential national security threats. These issues are commonly described as security threats and they found their place in security studies discussion. Specificity of environmental issues makes it very difficult to set some common rules which determine that particular environmental problem is security threat, because particular problems could cause threats to security in one state but they would be no harm at all in second state. This is one of the reasons why we will use most common and recognized environmental threats and particular examples where these issues cause security threats.

3.1 Climate change Climate is the basic living condition on Earth. It is not just weather outside or the changing seasons. If we look at Earth as a whole then „Climate is determined by the atmospheric circulation and by its interactions with the large-scale ocean currents and the land with its features such as albedo, vegetation and soil moisture. The climate of the Earth as a whole depends on factors that influence the radiative balance, such as for example, the atmospheric composition, solar radiation or volcanic eruptions“(IPCC 2001). Changes in climate are going on in natural cycles from the very beginning and we can observe this cycle in the form of cooling (ice ages) and warming (interglacial) periods. Unexpected changes in regional and global climate led to research which concluded with high confidence that natural climate cycle is being disturbed. It is not clear yet whether these disruptions are caused naturally or there are other factors e.g. human activities. There is scientific consensus about proceeding climate change24 although there are doubts whether these changes are natural or induced by other factors. “Detection of Climate Change is the process of demonstrating that an observed change is significantly different (in a statistical sense) from what can be explained by natural variability. The detection of a change, however, does not necessarily imply that its causes are understood. Similarly, attribution of climate change to anthropogenic causes involves statistical analysis and the assessment 24

More information about scientific consensus can be find here e.g.: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php; Anderegg et al. 2010; http://climate.nasa.gov/scientificconsensus.

38

of multiple lines of evidence to demonstrate, within a pre-specified margin of error, that the observed changes are (1) unlikely to be due entirely to natural internal climate variability; (2) consistent with estimated or modeled responses to the given combination of anthropogenic and natural forcing; and (3) not consistent with alternative, physically plausible explanations of recent climate change”(IPCC 2007: 83). It is probable that climate change will become the most important driver of global environmental changes in the future. Probability of continual rising global temperature could be detrimental for reasons of safety and security. A sharp rise in temperatures will likely increase climate instability and the frequency of extreme weather events (storms, hurricanes, tornadoes) and changes in long-term weather characteristics (temperature, precipitations) (Chichinski, Luterbacher 2012). But as the global climate is changing slowly we are not able to perceive these changes and therefore regional climatic changes are more relevant for us. To predict regional changes is even more difficult than global because of additional effects of direct human interventions in the environment, which vary from region to region. Besides human activities the natural processes connected to regional precipitations or extreme weather events are very difficult to predict because they involve extremely complex physics while temperature is outcome of relatively straightforward thermal balance (Schubert, Schellnhuber 2008: 55). 3.1.1 Changes in selected climate characteristics In the upcoming section we will discuss four factors that are changing because of changing climate and which could have impact on human livelihood and security. Scenario predictions will range within period up to 2050. Changes in this period are relatively easy to predict and have high likelihood of actually occurring.25 Temperature on the global scale is quite foreseeable up 2030: the rise in temperature compared to 2005 will very likely be in the range of 0,4 – 0,6°C irrespective of emissions scenario assumed. There is no high probability in changes only very rapid and radical changes in emissions of greenhouse gases or aerosols, or unforeseeable events (volcano eruption meteorite impact) would bring about any marked deviation from the forecast (Schubert and Schellnhuber 2008: 55-56). There is and will be considerable variation in warming on the 25

This is possible because of cumulative and inertial effects of climate; moreover we can already observe some of the trends that will be mentioned in the following text.

39

regional level.26 These changes may be represented by changes in biosphere27; glaciers melting and changes in local climate and water cycles (ibid. 2008). Similar changes could be represented by heatwaves.28 The physics of heatwave is still not fully understood and therefore it is almost impossible to predict it. On the other hand with approaching middle of the century it is expected that heatwaves become a norm more than an accidental occasion (Schär et al. 2004). Global temperature will be rising just gradually but regional and local changes could be spacious with severe consequences on human livelihood and existence. Precipitation. Globally averaged, it is probable that rainfall will increase in a warmer climate (IPCC 2007). The main reason for increasing rainfall is increasing temperature and consequent evaporation. Global warming amplify natural water cycle: evaporation in the subtropics increases and this leads to heavier precipitation on the medium and high latitudes. In general, subtropical regions are tending to become more arid, while high-latitude regions are becoming more humid, although there are many regional and micro-regional idiosyncrasies in this regard (Schubert and Schellnhuber 2008: 59). These changes cause that many arid areas are becoming even drier especially in the Saharan and Mediterranean regions, southern Africa, the south-western U.S., north-eastern Brazil, India and northern part of China. Many of these regions are already suffering from multiple environmental impacts. Amount of precipitation is not the only concern; unusually long periods of drought and intense rainfalls. Changes in these long-term trends could cause – in some regions – fatal changes in the environment. Another aspect of this changing water cycle is decreasing amount of water in absolute terms. The absolute amount of water available for humans is decreasing despite the fact that amount of precipitation increase in absolute terms (ibid. 2008). Tropical cyclones. The number of tropical cyclones is increasing for approximately over a decade. It was observed that its number and intensity are increasing, which is probably due primarily to the increase in tropical ocean temperatures. It is very probable that this trend will continue and will threaten primarily regions that are already endangered by hurricanes (Caribbean, coastal areas of China). Possible development for the future is expansion of tropical storms towards the poles, since the warm temperatures that allow these weather events will present in a greater areas. We can already observe this process, for example in 2004 there was the first ever hurricane occurring in the South Atlantic (Hurricane Catarina) 26

This is probably happen because of (1) continents are warming faster than the global mean and (2) higheraltitude regions are warming especially fast because of shrinking snow and ice cover. 27 Most of the animals are very sensitive on their environmental conditions and their habitats. 28 Heatwaves in Europe in 2003 killed between 30,000 and 50,000 lives.

40

off the coast of Brazil; in 2005 two tropical storms took path towards the Europe (Vinc had weakened before he reached Spanish mainland; Delta caused considerable damages on Canary Islands). These kinds of changes could become even more frequent in the future. Damages from extreme weather events may be so massive and severe that it could be great obstacle to socioeconomic development of the affected countries as well as security of their inhabitants (Schubert, Schellnhuber 2008: 60). Sea-level rise. Throughout 20th century the sea-level rose by 15 – 20cm and it is most probably modern phenomenon because there have not been any comparable sea-level rise occurred in the thousand years prior to this (IPCC 2007). Since 1993, accurate satellite data relating to the sea level have become available and these indicate a rise around 3mm per year since that date. Despite this, there have been observed interesting regional variations: the sea level is falling e.g. around Maldives. But it is very probable that this effect will not take long – water input from melting ice, increased precipitation and rising temperature of seawater will very likely override regional fluctuations and lead to a rise everywhere. The current sea-level rise is most probably result of warming of the oceans (thermal expansion) and melt water input. Melting of the continental ice sheet could pose extended sea-level rise (up to 70 meter if whole ice sheet melted29) and threaten waste coastal areas that are densely populated (Schubert, Schellnhuber 2008). There are many different factors which sea-level rise may influence e.g. salinity, temperature, ratio between ocean water and fresh water from land, pH that could have impact on the future trends. In general, more threatened will be coastal regions and small islands; there is probability that low-latitude regions will be threatened with possible salinization of soil and water resources. 3.1.2 Climate change and security Connection between climate change and security is not new. There are many researches that dealt and dealing with this issues (Barnett and Adreg 2007; Busby 2008; Rashid et al. 2011). Climate change threatens water and food security, the allocation of resources, and coastal populations, threats which in turn could increase forced migration, raise tensions and trigger conflict (Brown et al. 2007). Climate change is very complex process that influences every aspect of life on the Earth and could be also seen as umbrella concept for partial regional

29

These scenarios are highly improbable to occur in the 100-200 years horizon. They serve more as example than real prediction.

41

problems which may cause security threats. We can see simplified relationship between determinants of human insecurity, violent conflict and climate change in table 1.

Table 1 The relationship between determinants of human insecurity, violent conflict and climate change Factors affecting violent conflict

Processes which affect/exacerbate

climate

change

could

Vulnerable livelihoods

Climate change is likely to cause widespread impacts on water availability, coastal regions,agriculture, extreme events and diseases. The impacts on livelihoods will be more significant in sectors of the population with high resource-dependency, and in more environmentally and socially marginalised areas. Some of these climate driven outcomes are long term and chronic (such as declining productivity of agricultural land), while others are episodic (such as floods). These impacts on livelihoods will be widespread both in developing and developed countries.

Poverty (relative/chronic/transitory)

Poverty (and particularly relative deprivation) is affected by the spatial differentiation of climate impacts and the sensitivity of places to them. Climate change may directly increase absolute, relative, and transient poverty by undermining access to natural capital. It may indirectly increase poverty through its effects on resource sectors and the ability of governments to provide social safety nets. Stresses from climate change will differentially affect those made vulnerable by political-economic processes such as liberalisation of markets for agricultural commodities.

Weak states

The impacts of climate change are likely to increase the costs of providing public infrastructure such as water resources, and services such as education, and may decrease government revenues. So climate change may decrease the ability of states to create opportunities and provide important freedoms for citizens as well as decrease the capacity of government agencies to adapt and respond to climate change itself.

Migration

Migration may be one response of people whose livelihoods are undermined by climate change. However, climate is unlikely to be the sole, or even the most important „push‟ factor in migration decisions. Yet large-scale movements of people may increase the risk of conflict in host communities.

J. Barnett, W.N. Adger; 2007

The scientific evidence is now enormous that climate change poses many threats and challenges to the security of human beings. These changes may have many direct and indirect 42

consequences that could undermine the function of state legitimacy to provide services to its citizens. Mainly direct effects of changing climate such as intensity of extreme weather events, forest fires and sea-level rise will challenge many individuals and communities and in some cases even nation‟s stability, particularly in weak and fragile states. Climate change will not threaten just access to natural resources and degradation of environment it is highly probable that it will threaten socio-economic sector such as energy, industries, transport, agriculture, or public health (Rashid et al. 2011). Wide research has shown that we can generalize environmental threats that define environmental dimension of security into three categories: (1) Threats to human civilization from natural environment that are not the result of human actions – earthquakes, volcanic eruptions; threats about which there are debate about their causes – meteorites, the natural cycle of returning ice age; (2) Threats caused by human actions on natural systems and structure of the planet, when changes appear to constitute an existential threat to all or part of civilization – depletion of ozone layer, anthropogenic pollution; (3) Threats caused by human actions on natural systems and structure of the planet, when they do not seem to constitute existential threat in present or near future, but they could cause broad danger from long term perspective – exploitation or degradation of resources (Buzan et al. 1998: 13-19). Each of these three parts threatens nation state on the different scale, moreover they are not separate which means that they may occur in one period; could be following each other or could be linked together. Multiplier effect in this respect is equal to threat multiplier and poses even greater risks to states. Despite the fact that environmental security is focusing primarily on individual/group of individuals‟ security environmental changes as consequences of climate changes could pose great risks even for states. Physical processes such as rising sea-level may pose substantial security risk by threatening physical territory; for example a 45cm rise in sea-level will potentially result in a loss of 10,9 % of Bangladesh‟s territory30 (IPPC 2001). There are similar threats to small island states. But sea-level rise could pose other than just direct threat of losing physical land. Salinization of land and extreme socio-

30

45cm sea-level rise is not very probable in the 21st century, on the other hand some scenarios state that this degree of sea-level rising is not entirely unreal.

43

economic impacts may cause that affected areas will become uninhabitable even before the actual sea-level rise – this pose environmental issues as real non military threats to state security (Barnett 2003). There are several dimensions in which climate changes may influence human being life. As was already mentioned above these processes and their impacts are not linear and could not be easily predicted, they are extremely complex with many hidden factors (Barnett 2003). Changes in environmental dimension were already discussed above and therefore we will summarize it here with focus on security. The environment is planetary support system on which all other human enterprises depend based on providing sources and environment for our living. Among the changes which pose the biggest threats to human wellbeing are desertification and deforestation, global warming and ozone depletion, rising sea-levels and extreme weather events, air and water pollution, population growth and natural disasters (Barnett 2003; Scheffran and Battaglini 2011). All these changes not only negatively affect life but they may contribute to larger societal effects e.g. by undermining the infrastructure of society, inducing degradation of living condition and living standards. Continual changes in our environment pose serious risks through higher demands on health system; crisis management, institutions and stability of societal structures (Rashid et al. 2011). All above mentioned factors are contributing to lower stability of society and state, which may lead to destabilization of the state and create conflict potential. Economic dimension is also highly affected by climate changes because most of the socio-economic development activities are dependent and sensitive to climatic condition. Regional changes in temperature and precipitations pose great challenge in many parts of the world and may intensify already existing economic problems. Economics in many fragile and developing states are dependent on agriculture, this orientation may pose great risks concerned food security and resource scarcity (water) with changing environmental conditions. Another serious problem could be higher frequency, intensity and unpredictability in extreme weather events that may seriously damage important infrastructure or cause that weather conditions will become so unpredictable that particular region will be abandoned because of high economic risks. Climate changes and their impact on particular regions will most probably increase amount of environmental migrants which may pose great pressure on

44

economies in destination‟s area31 (Rashid et al. 2011). Environmental instability and pressure on the economics as a consequence of climate changes pose serious threats to human well being and live style which may lead to strong sense of injustice and endanger of life. Decline in economics; infrastructure degradation, arrival of migrants and added pressure on the regional economy may work as trigger to social unrests and consequently to escalation towards conflict. Wide range of impacts from climate change may significantly affect also political dimension. Climate change negatively affects physical security needed for survival. People deprived from access to food, water supplies or fertile land feel injustice. Climate change is not just about environmental surroundings, it greatly influence such social phenomenon as poverty, inequality between groups or access to health care. People affected by climate change are often forced to migrate for better survival conditions – within country, or between the countries which poses increased pressure on stability in country of origins or in migrant‟s destination country (Rashid et al. 2011). Migration as a consequence of climate (environmental) change is one of the most common causes that poses create political and social instability and we will focus on it in following sections. There is widespread consensus that climate change is undermining political stability and that climate change, human migration and political instability are inseparably mixed (Barnett 20003; Sheffran and Battaglini 2011; Rashid et al. 2011). In the light of changing climate and consequently environment stability of government and political system is crucial. Climate change and its consequences increase probability of decreasing quality of living conditions (Barnett and Adger 2007). If the state is not able to ensure basic living conditions for its citizens then in the (negatively) changing environment it is more than likely that state will face political instability which could escalate into local, regional riots respectively; facing large-scale degradation these riots may escalate even into conflict. 3.1.3 Climate change over next 30 years and its security dimension Climate change is already posing concerns about its future progress. Considering its extreme complexity and non-linearity it is very difficult to predict future scenarios. Center for Strategic & International Studies published project report (2007) where they are dealing with climate change, its impact on states and its consequences for national security. They created 31

It is probable that biggest amount of environmental refugees will be from small low-lying islands which will be affected by sea-level rising. Particularly islands such as Tuvalu, Kiribati, or Marshall islands (Rashid et al. 2011).

45

scenarios that cover plausible range of impact severity. These scenarios were based on current scientific understanding and uncertainty regarding past and future climate change together with the findings of Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and other peer-reviewed sources. These scenarios are based on the primary criterion of plausibility rather than probability (Campbell et al. 2007: 35) and we will focus mainly on security implications of climate change. Scenario is not prediction of the future it is reckoning of probable evolution, although the scenario we are going to analyze is in the 30 years horizon and is characterized as “highly probable” and “expected”. There should not be any abrupt changes or other great surprises in the thirty years horizon; by 2040 average global temperature should rise 1,3°C above 1990 average; warming is greater over land masses and increases from lower to higher altitudes; low altitude ecosystems are greatly impacted; global sea-level increases by 0,23 meters causing damage to the most vulnerable coastal wetlands with associated negative impacts on local fisheries, intrusion of salt water into ground water supplies in low-lying islands and coastal areas; regional changes will be more diverse raging from slightly positive to greatly negative impacts; amount of precipitation will increase but their diversification will change which will cause additional stress on the environment – increased incidence of droughts, floods and heat waves; extreme weather events will occur more frequently (Campbell et al 2007.:38). These changes are highly probable and there is no political or scientific way to prevent or change it. Let us look closer on security consequences of these changes. The greatest impact of climate changes will be in low latitudinal bands and sub-Saharan Africa. These areas together with some regions of developing countries will face exacerbating food shortages, water scarcity, and destructive weather events, spreading of diseases, natural resources competition and migration. These processes are closely interconnected, selfperpetuating and have multiplying effects32 and once underway it will be almost impossible to reverse it (Campbell et al. 2007). Impacts in developed countries of northern hemisphere will be different. There is no probability of destabilization as in developing countries. On the other hand tropical cyclones and other extreme weather events will occur more frequently. This highly raises probability of flooding not just in coastal areas but in inland, both scenarios bring increase concerns about quick emergency evacuation and possible large-scale economic impacts. Security risks could be found in the post-catastrophe period, when for example in

32

We will look closer on particular effects in the following chapters.

46

New Orleans post-storm anarchy posed challenge to state monopoly over violence. Largescale weather events pose great threat to infrastructure as well in developed countries even more than in developing (Busby 2008). Scenarios about future development predicts more frequent occurrence of extreme weather events which may pose security risks even in developed countries – constant pressure and stress on infrastructure and local residents could be trigger of sense of injustice and anger that could lead into local riots or migration to other parts of the country, which may pose additional pressure on the security stability. Global health will be also negatively affected particularly in developing world and these health changes will have significant impact on the geopolitical landscape. Water-borne and vector-borne diseases will be particularly prevalent in countries that will have to deal with significant additions in precipitation due to climate change. Shortages – mainly food and water – will also cause higher probability to illnesses and lower ability to recover. The risk of pandemic diseases and new mutations and discovery of new illnesses will also increase. Security risks connected to global health are closely linked to migration and economy. Migration from country where has been significant disease outbreak may pose serious security risks and even violent situations on the borders or inside destination area (Campbell et al. 2007). As was mentioned above diseases are more likely to outbreak in developing countries where there is no good infrastructure and there are no suitable conditions for pharmaceutics research or to have enough financial means to buy needed medicaments abroad. In the last section we will deal with slight probability events – sea-level rise and Arctic ice melt – on the other hand these events may have impact on the national security of particular states. Melting of the Arctic ice is very significant from economic point of view because with the absence of summer ice sheet the Northern Sea route and Northwest Passage will be open for shipping at least for parts of the year. Security dimension in this respect is who will claim legal rights of sovereignty over “new” territory. Similar problem rises in respect of natural resources which are embedded in the bottom of the North Sea (Busby 2008). This scenario certainly involves increased presence of the country in the area which could be difficult if there are no clear lines that separate international waters from sovereign states. With the melting ice is closely connected sea-level rise. Scenarios vary about the high of sea level and what influence it, but most scenarios speak about at least 25 – 30 cm to the 2100. If the continental ice sheets melting will proceed rapidly even several meters rise in sealevel is predicted (Busby 2008). This may severely affect mainly coastal regions either 47

flooding of the land or by intrusion of salt water and contamination of underground water that would make that particular location uninhabitable. Small island will with certainty face either flooding or devastation by sea water. Security risks are again connected to migration processes and resource deprivation which will be caused by degradation or loosing coastal land. Climate change is one of the natural Earth cycles. But ongoing unexpected changes are threatening living conditions of every community on the Earth. Because of extreme complexity and interconnectedness of climate change it is almost impossible make any predictions of future evolution. Changes caused by climate range from positive to strongly negative effects on regional and global environment. Changes in precipitations, extensive evaporation, changes in water cycle, sea-level rise, extreme weather events or scarcity of resources are just several examples of climate change impact. Interconnectedness and complexity of global environmental systems pose the greatest threat to human security because of their potential devastating impacts and lack of opportunities to stop the processes. From the security point of view the most serious consequence of climate change is degradation of environment and depletion of living conditions. The most probable reaction on these processes is migration to regions with better living conditions. Large-scale migration may pose serious security risks and we will deal with the problem in greater detail in later subchapters. Climate change may also cause extreme weather events that could lead into destruction of social and economical infrastructure and make even perfectly suitable region uninhabitable. Other events may change the environmental conditions in so radical way that the whole region will fundamentally change the living environment. Because of the extreme complexity and high unpredictability there is almost impossible to react to security consequences of climate change. Most of the impacts are indirect and highly uneven through world regions so should be security actions. The most probable consequence of climate change is outmigration from impacted regions to more secure environment but migration has great conflict potential, we will look closer on this problem in following subchapters. Changing of physical land and accessibility of resources has great conflict potential as well. Climate change is umbrella concept with indirect consequences for security; on the other hand its subordinate effects pose serious security consequences for countries either through direct danger of conflict escalation or through endanger of physical environment of inhabitants.

48

3.2 Migration One of the oldest and most used survival techniques that human beings use is migration. Nomadic way of living was our answer to ever changing environment surrounding us. To migrate from one point to another was natural. It is therefore inherent to characterize migration as umbrella term in general for all forms of displacement and flight that take place voluntarily or involuntarily and across or within national borders (UNHCR 2006, 2007). We can categorized migration movements according to the precipitating factor (war, natural disasters); the distance of move (south-north migration, migration within the country); the duration of displacement (temporary displacement from original place, permanent relocation); the goal of migration (rural-urban migration, south-south migration); and the outcomes in the countries of origin and arrival (successful integration in the new country, return to the country of origin) (Black 2001; Clark 2006). In this section we will focus on the environmental migration, or environmentally induced migration which we are going to define in the further text. 3.2.1 Environmentally induced migration Environmental changes are natural part of the processes on the Earth from the very beginning. As environmental changes we can consider for example these processes – rock and soil erosion, changes in water cycle, or change in oceans, atmospheric temperature respectively (IPCC 2007). These changes are natural part of Earth cycles; they are continual and proceed through long periods of time. Cycles were natural and they were creating unique environment for life, but these continual changes are happening faster nowadays and they are causing disruptions of environment. These sudden changes are threatening natural cycles which were framework for sustaining life on the Earth. In the process of time we could observe how people in specific environments were able to adapt to their surroundings. They were migrating through landscape as gatherers and hunters; they were migrating for better living conditions, or to find better food resources; they were migrating for survival of specific environment conditions in which they were living. Migration is natural part of life in specific regions – migration because of regular flooding, or drought. Migration connected to the specific environmental conditions is therefore natural part of live in some regions (Warner 2009). As was mentioned above migration has usually been the traditional response to the impact or aftermath of disasters. As a result of natural disasters it is connected to the population growth. As Clark (2007) noted the proper linkage goes from natural events which 49

would be harmless but with growing population they are turning into natural disasters, because natural disaster are only happening when large number of people is involved (2007: 8). Although population growth is one of the determinants to environmentally induced migration, extreme, unexpected and sudden environmental events (natural or industrial disasters) which are resulting in overnight, massive population displacement are another. Last but not least are gradual environmental changes (desertification, degradation, deforestation etc.). These changes are occurring slowly over a long period of time with small yet cumulative manifestation; there could be a threshold after which these phenomena can become irreversible (IOM 2008: 25-26). Environmental migration could be then defined as a complex, multi-causal phenomenon driven by variety of factors and compounded by social, economic and political forces (IOM 2012: 17). 3.2.2 Drivers and dimensions of migration According to Black et al. (2011) we can recognize five drivers for migration. Economic drivers could be identified as opportunity to find job, or better financial conditions; political drivers are besides conflicts, discrimination or security also opportunities to participate on the political processes; demographic drivers are defined by size and structure of population in chosen regions; social drivers include expectation of families, education, or cultural traditions. We will focus more on the last diver for migration which is environmental. Accessibility to, stability and availability to ecosystem are main mechanisms through which we could present prosperity in selected regions. They could be disturbed by extreme events, or gradual degradation, depletion respectively. There is possibility that both impulses for migration could cause permanent degradation and therefore avert migrants from return (ibid: 7). These drivers could be rarely found separately, they are usually connected one to another and forming whole set of incentives for migration. Complexity of environmental drivers could be seen in five different dimensions which are connected to this one in particular. Rise in sea level could lead into more frequent coastal flooding, connected to coastal erosion and disruptions of ecosystems and salinization of lowlying agricultural land. These changes could be significant impulse for migration of significant number of people. Second dimension is change in tropical storm and cyclone frequency or intensity. These processes could cause coastal flooding and damages, but their impact on migration is not as significant as previous dimension, because these processes have historical relevance and they are not generating great displacements nowadays. Changes in 50

rainfall regimes are third dimension and they could lead to increase risk of flooding, or draught (fire consequently) shortages in water supplies, which could cause industrial or agricultural problems. Fourth, increases in temperature could lead to extremely complex and wide range of events. Increase of temperature could lead to declines in crop productivity; changes in water cycles; potential for occurring new illnesses and new invasive species. These events could not lead into migration directly but they could make these regions less attractive destinations and they could encourage outmigration from region. The last dimension is changes in atmospheric chemistry. These changes do not have direct impact on migration but connected to other dimensions they could affect crop productivity, lower ozone concentration, and cause changes in important terrestrial and marine ecosystems (Black et al. 2011: 8). 3.2.3 Environmentally induced migration and conflict As was mentioned above environmental degradation could be very strong impulse for migration. But degrading environment is rarely marked as main cause of migration. Environmental problems such as fresh water degradation, decline in food production, or extreme weather are threatening human livelihood and force people to migrate to another destination. So why is not environmental degradation one of the most aching and pressing problems? Linkage to other social, economical and political determinants is causing that displaced people usually indicate other determinants as crucial for their decision to leave their home. Environmental migration is therefore influenced by individual attributes; vulnerability; functioning institutions and government structures and environmental conflict. Speaking of individual attributes we would consider age, level of education or degree of traumatization after natural disasters. The history of migration in specified region is also very important. Vulnerability is considered by extent to which the effects of environmental changes and a range of political and socio-economical factors have an impact on migrants. Functioning institutions and government structures direct us to the way how institutions are able to deal with natural disasters. From our point of view are specific environmentally induced conflicts. In this case is linkage other way around – environmental change is indirect cause of migration, because the initial cause is environmental degradation that induced conflict and migration is consequence of conflict situation (Schubert, Schellnhuber 2008:120). Conflict could be then interpreted as a transfer mechanism (Homer-Dixon in Schubert, Schellnhuber 2008:120). These determinants are not exclusive and the dimensions in which environmental migration could be influenced are broad.

51

Linkage between environmental changes and migration was sketched; let‟s focus on the linkage between migration and conflict. Explicit linkage between great amount of migrants influx into new areas and violent conflict is on the one hand uncontentious on the other hand empirical evidence in this situation is not very rich. The amount of evidence which we have at disposal confirms statement that migration can, sometimes extensively, increase likelihood of conflict. Therefore it is evident that different types of migration involve different types of security risks (Lohrmann 2000). In Schubert, Schellnhuber et al. (2008) publication Climate Change as a Security Risk authors identify several determinants that influence shift to and increase probability of violent conflict. Competition for resources/demographics. The probability of migration induced conflict is higher if there is potential for competition between environmental migrants and resident population. As environmental migration is more likely to occur in the climate change impacted regions and environmental migrants are more likely to migrate on short distances there is high probability that chosen destinations will not have enough resources for unexpected raise in population (Findlay 2011). Big influx of migrants into new areas could be significant factor in violent conflict. Changes in environment which could arise from several sources (climate change, shortages or degradation of resources, etc.) can be significant factor in decision making process of potential migrants. If these changes are threatening mere existence of people there is very high probability that they will migrate. Great amount of people migrating to new destination could cause tension in environment and resource capacity. Newly-emerged overpopulation of the environment and consequent higher demands on natural resources, jobs, social and health care are very probable cause of riots, which could escalate into conflict (Hugo 1996). Great amount of migrants from depleted areas could destabilize public and political balance followed by violence. But demographics are not the only problem connected with enormous movement of people from one point to another. Another big problem is lack of resources such as land, accommodation, water, employment and basic social and health services for which indigenous inhabitants and newcomers have to compete (Schubert, Schellnhuber 2008). Due to changing climate there is higher probability of soil degradation, contamination of water supplies, livestock and infrastructure could be hardly hit by changing environment too. These events could stretch human and environment adaptability beyond endurable limits which could lead to sense of life threatening situation and to more violent responses (Barnett 2003). But this competition over resources is not just one directional. 52

When migrants return to their regions of origins there could be a situation when their land or property was through their absence granted to others (Schubert, Schellnhuber 2008: 121). Competition over resources and demographic issues connected to the migration could lead into violence and consequently to conflict as was showed above. But as is mentioned in Barnett (2003) article, the probability of large-scale international conflict is not very high. Character of environmental migration connected to resource scarcity and demographic gives little possibilities to escalate small regional conflict into larger one. Despite this reality potential to escalate into violent conflict is proven. Ethnicity. Probability of conflict may increase if there is difference in ethnicity of migrants and indigenous inhabitants. Upsetting of ethnic balance could destabilize whole region. Local inhabitants could place higher value to preserving their ethnicity and from this point of view they could perceive arrival of different ethnic group as threat. Sense of danger and potential threat from newcomers may lead to xenophobia and violent confrontations or further destabilization of ethnic situation (Homer-Dixon 1999). Different ethnicity may lead to tensions between two or more groups and fear from unknown plays important role in outrage of ethnicity feelings. These kinds of fears and concerns are not natural, but they could be brought into public debate through political purposes. Another security problem connected to the ethnicity is activity of migrants and refugees linked to their country of origin. They may support domestic political parties or groups with specific interests. This support could be financial funding, gaining political support, or through sending funds or arms (Lohrmann 2000). Linking this scenario to environmental degradation these groups could gain fund for restoration of their regions of origin, or they could organize migration of other members of their community. These activities may threaten political, economic, social and ethnic stability and could lead to violent reactions of receiving country inhabitants. But conflict potential could be find even on the opposite side. Membership of migrants in specific ethnic groups and their coherent character could lead to social exclusion of these migrants in the country of arrival. This exclusion may lead into riots and consequently to conflict with indigenous inhabitants (Schubert, Schellnhuber 2008: 121). Ethnic affinity is therefore very important in the light of migration. A government and its citizens are more receptive to migrants who share same or similar values as they are. Potential threat for inhabitants of receiving country is migrants who adheres different values such as religion, habits or they have different perception of surrounding environment. But what constitutes ethnic affinity is social construct

53

and it can change over the time, which makes ethnicity even more prone to conduced violence (Weiner 1992). Diaspora/migration networks. Diaspora was highlighted as a possible cause of conflict (Lohrmann 2000). Small groups of people who were (usually) forced to migrate from their country of origin and stay in contact with their home country could contribute in significant measure to conflict. As Lohrmann pointed out these groups could support their domestic political, ethnic or religious groups by sending them finances or weapons which could lead into local/intrastate conflict with possible spill-over effects (ibid: 9). Diaspora migrants could play significant role in financing and supporting of violence or conflicts and therefore directly contribute to initiation, escalation, or prolongation of conflict within a country. There is also a risk that they will introduce violent ideologies and create conditions for confrontation (Schubert, Schellnhuber 2008: 121). Connected this migration influence dimension to environmental problems; we could see potential for violence or riots in the linking long-term environmental degradation and permanent migration to other regions. From this point of view we may see Diasporas as stepping stones for larger groups of environmental migrants or refugees. These increasing of migration network capacity may lead to problems connected to migration mentioned above as well as to problems which are we going to discus in following lines. Reaction of the government of the arrival country/arrival regions. Response of government on unexpected migration and conflict factors described above is substantial factor which determines conflict escalation. Abilities of governments to deal or react to extensive and unexpected migration33 are very limited. They have to face unexpected and tense situations connected to great amounts of people presented in their territory34. Government has to provide decent accommodation or shelters, food, drinking water and health care, which could be unbearable financial and resource burden. In the cases of unexpected migration there could occur problems with different ethnicity and religion as was mentioned above. These problems need to be addressed and solved. Government may react by non-discriminatory regulations, temporary wide-ranging rights for minorities. In the case of long-term migration there should be introduced politics for inclusion of minorities into society of receiving country. The problem could occur if this does not happen. Migrants on the basis of specially

33

which is very common in extreme weather events like hurricanes, or earthquakes. We could see reactions of governments for example on dealing with internal migration after hurricane Katrina in the U.S. or problem with refugees from Africa to Spain. 34

54

introduced politics may be restricted of some of their rights. They could be treated as guests and this could lead to degradation of living standards and may threaten migrant‟s health and well-being (Schubert, Schellnhuber 2008: 121). From the governmental point of view unexpected migration is always a problem. Too restrictive politics may lead to riots in migrants groups‟ too loose and forthcoming politics may lead to riots between indigenous inhabitants. Balance line is extremely thin and there is almost always potential for conflict escalation. Therefore disaster management, early warning systems and other tools for preventing and better managing of unexpected situations is needed. Despite all of these possibilities potential for conflict escalation still remains very high. Governance capacity. Governance capacity connected to environmental migration is especially relevant because it is likely that majority of environmental migrants will migrate within developing countries. As was mentioned earlier migration tends to have regional character rather than global. As degradation of environment is more likely in developing countries environmental migrants will more probably migrate within developing countries with weak governmental structures. Receiving country is usually close to carrying capacity of environment and has little opportunities to adapt to changing situation. Situation when migrants overstretch the capacity of the authority in the country of reception are therefore a potential cause of conflict (Schubert, Schellnhuber 2008: 121). Political stability. Political stability of receiving country is quite important, conflict research showed that there is higher probability of conflict within a country if the degree of political stability is not very high (Schubert, Schellnhuber 2008). Conflict became more likely if there has been violent conflict in recent past, or history of conflict exists there. Conflict escalation is probable if there has been recently change in government, or if the country in question recently gained independence. Similar problem could arise in the weak or failing states (Adamson 2006). If the state has problems to provide basic support for its own inhabitants likelihood that it will be able to provide it to immigrants is very low. This inability to ensure basic needs for actual inhabitants of territory may cause to violence and consequently to conflict. Weak states are usually more aggressive and more suspicious to newcomers just because their weak position in their own territory and they could act against migrants. Most of the problems connected to political stability influence dimension are mentioned in other dimensions – fear from newcomers, fear from destabilization of government, fear from shortages of supplies. We could argue that environmental migration is

55

therefore not cause of potential conflict, but incoming migrants could add significant amount of stress to already tense situation. 3.2.4 Environmentally induced migration – cases Probably the easiest way to identify environmentally induced migration is when we connected it to rapid-onset events. People have to flee in front of rapid–onset event to save their lives, this situation is usually short-term and people are able to return. The period after which they may return is conditioned by degree of recovery of social, economic and physical characteristics and their renewal rate. As sample case of rapid–onset event migration we will use floods in Mozambique and hurricane Katrina in U.S. In 2001, 2007 and 2008 heavy rains caused flooding along the Zambezi River in central Mozambique. These floods affected approximately 1 million people in Zambezi River valley. Affected people lost their homes and livelihoods including their harvest and access to medical facilities sanitation and drinking water. As consequence of vast flooding of area, government and international aid started resettlement to new areas – away from dangerous floods. The problem was that migrants indicated that new areas were prone to drought, on the other hand they appreciated flood-safe areas. Another problem was that able–bodied people regularly left resettlement and migrates for seasonal work elsewhere. Resettlement caused additional problems to drought as deforestation, soil erosion and water scarcity. Relocated people remained heavily dependent on the help from government and NGOs (Warner 2010). Forced migration to new place consequently caused extensive degradation of new environment and inability of people to provide livelihood for their families. These factors may lead to another migration within or across borders and consequently could lead into violence. Hurricane Katrina is another example of rapid–onset event but Katrina has different consequences as flooding in Mozambique. New Orleans is city built on a coast susceptible to hurricanes and flooding from Mississippi River and it is defended only by humanly engineered levees and ripe for major environmental catastrophe. The case of Katrina pointed to very interesting and very important aspect of impact of natural events. Even some natural events are historically considered as not fatal they could become part of this category through growth of populations in locations which are vulnerable to these events (Clark 2007: 9). Population growth in New Orleans and poor anti–flooding system caused more than $34 billion in damage, with more than 1300 deaths and forced to move more than 300, 000 Louisiana residents. More than half of the people will never return to the region and they 56

already found resettlement throughout U.S. This points to other important aspect which may significantly determine abilities of states to react – their economic, social and political stability and well being. U.S. had vast amount of capacities to deal with consequences of hurricane Katrina and therefore impact of hurricane was not fatal. We could see different consequences of hurricane Mitch in 1998 when destroyed several countries in Central America, particularly Honduras and Nicaragua and caused extensive damages on property, several thousands of deaths and more than three million Honduras residents were left homeless. As consequence afterward the migration rate in region grew which caused another tensions in region (Smith 2007). We could understand slow–onset events as slow and continual environmental degradation. These events may or may not enable to people to migrate back. The urgency to migrate is not sudden but compared to rapid-onset events people may not have a choice to return. This opportunity could be lost due to coastal erosion, sea level rise etc. but great interference could be even the situation when they are able to return – it is probable that people will have to find alternative livelihood in incriminated area and there still remains the possibility that people will have to migrate due to worsening conditions (Warner 2010: 409). Nile River Delta could be one example. Arab Republic of Egypt has an arid or hyper – arid climate. The most productive zones are around Nile delta which counts for 3 % of total land. Projected rising of sea levels threatens populations living closer to the sea and could force them into more concentrated areas. Desertification and soil degradation are other impulses which push people to relocate or migrate permanently. These impulses drive some people to migrate internally and to look for new livelihood and this situation is expected to worsen (Warner 2010: 409). Living conditions are still worsening and people have to migrate to ensure their basic needs, the problem is that there are not a lot of options in Egypt as it is in arid climate and approximately 96 % of area takes Sahara and Libyan Desert. These slowonset events and very dense population left little space for mitigation or efforts to restore degraded environment. Migration is common response but regarding specific climate and geographical conditions it could lead to potential clashes even between Egypt inhabitants themselves (Schubert, Schellnhuber 2008). It is probable that we may follow similar impact of changes in Bangladesh. Bangladesh is situated on the Gulf of Bengal and in the delta of three great rivers – Ganges, Brahmaputra – Jamuna and Meghna. These geographical specifics predestine Bangladesh to deal with 57

regular floods every year. With one of the densest population and as one of the least developed countries in the world it is very vulnerable to any change in environment and climate cycles. Bangladesh is almost unable to deal with unexpected or enormous floods in monsoon summer and drought during wither (Schubert, Schellnhuber 2008). It is estimated that situation in Bangladesh will worsen with continual changes and remaining weak government. Another problem is sea level rise. The sea level in Bangladesh is predicted to rise approximately 12cm by 2020 which could have great impact as quality country land is almost on the sea level. Continual changes in climate will probably cause changes in monsoon periods and in their intensity which is almost unsolvable problem for country Bangladesh. Migration to bordering countries mainly India could be solution but reality already showed that different ethnicity and religion already led to conflict (Swain 1996). 3.2.5 Environmental migration as cause of conflict Migration is natural part of human life from its very beginning. Through history we can observe myriads of examples for migration. Environmentally induced migration on the other hand is not so common feature of our history. The reason is quite simple people usually do not connect environmental degradation to their worsening living conditions. They perceive decreasing crop production, decreasing and worsening of other resources as wood or water, but they do not identify these problems as crucial in their decision-making to migrate. Environmental factors are usually connected to other problems. Other case is extreme weather events which cause rapid- onset events that force people to migrate. IPCC indicate three processes which are most directly linked to human migration or population displacement: drought incidence; increased cyclone (hurricane, typhoon) intensity and sea level rise (IPCC 2007: 4, 12). New risks bounded to climate change are greater intensity, and storms would be likely track beyond traditional target zones which cause even greater migration and population displacement. Migration is very complex process with waste amount of impulses and stimulus and it could trigger of violent behavior. Militarization of state responses to migration points to changing paradigm in how states see international migration. Historically we perceive migration as economic or social issue but now it is becoming a security matter. Many countries are characterizing international migration as security threat35 (Smith 2007: 628).

35

We could state examples from Russian Prime Minister Fradkov on meeting of regional officials in 2006; Angola‟s Home Affairs Minister told that illegal migration was a “threat to national security”; or Michael

58

With the rising probability of environment degradation and permanent devastation the rate of intra and interstate migration will cause more potentially conflict situations. Ethnic, economic, social, cultural differences between indigenous inhabitants and immigrants are still rising and these inequalities could be very strong stressor for escalation of conflict.

3.3 Water scarcity; soil degradation and food insecurity Water and soil have been considered as plentiful resources for most of our history. These two goods are crucial for our survival and their potential or actual scarcity could lead to radical degradation of our living standards. Lack of water and severe degradation of soil usually led to outmigration from the area. The era of state borders makes this natural coping strategy difficult and people have to deal with this situation differently. We could follow securitization of water resources until late 1970s; through 1980s the concept of “water wars” arose (PearseSmith 2012); through 1990s and on the beginning of new millennium water scarcity became part of security issues. We will discuss potential water scarcity, securitization and possible consequences for state security in the further text. Soil degradation is closely connected to its overuse and water issues. Soil degradation may cause severe shortages in food production and radical decrease of fertility for long period of time. In the second part of the text we will argue that soil degradation and interconnected food production could have severe consequences not just in the given region but in the wider scale and that these issues could cause pose security risks. 3.3.1 Water scarcity Water has been considered as renewable and unlimited resource through our history, but with arrival of industrial revolution and extreme demands on water resources the world water reserves reduced drastically. About 900 million people have no access to improved sources of clean drinking water and over 2,6 billion people presently do not have access to improved sanitation (Kreamer 2012). 450 million people face severe shortages and about 20 % more water than now available will be needed to feed additional three billion people by 2025 (Seckler et al. 1999). A distinction is made between „green‟ and „blue‟ water. Green water is moisture in the soil and is sustained by precipitation, this water is crucial for sustaining ecosystems and for Chertoff, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary who in 2005 unveiled an effort to use unmanned drones to patrol U.S. borders (Smith 2007: 629).

59

rain-fed agriculture. Blue water is surface water (rivers, lakes) and usually is perceived as the only water source, this water is used in industry, irrigation and domestic use (IWMI in Schubert, Schellnhuber 2008). Utilization of „blue‟ water is approximately 70 % for agriculture; 20 % for industry and 10 % for domestic use. The greatest problems connected to water are overuse and pollution. Overuse of the water could have severe impact on ecosystem functioning and stability. Overuse of major rivers in some cases already led to dramatic consequences36. Similar as the water runs through countries and boundaries major withdrawals in one region could have impact on downstream regions (Falkenmark 1990). Water usage is connected to potential pollution – salination, input of organic and inorganic substances – which could degrade quality of water. Polluted water transfer pollution downstream and consequently causes degradation of shore soils, water ecosystems (fish as food source), and agrarian land (through irrigation) and could affect human health (Schubert, Schellnhuber 2008: 79-80). The water scarcity has two connotations – physical water scarcity and economic water scarcity. Physical water scarcity37 is situation when there are not enough water sources to meet current needs. These countries (will have to) have to reduce amount of water used in industry and agriculture which (will) make them more vulnerable and dependent on the other countries (Seckler et al. 1999). This situation may have potential to cause disturbances which could escalate to violent conflict over water resources. Economic water scarcity, water resources are available to meet current and future water needs, but the lack of institutional capacity or financial resources prevents efficient distribution and use (Schubert, Schellnhuber 2008: 81). There is potential for improvement of the situation and conflict potential is therefore lower than in physical water scarcity. Water availability and scarcity is linked to other factors as well. There is usually more difficult to access water in rural than in urban areas, on the other hand fast economic growth may cause migration of people to the cities and overpopulation and overuse of water sources and infrastructure which may lead to scarcity. Unavailability of water could consequently lead to riots even in regions where there is no physical water scarcity.

36

For example Yellow river in China and river Colorado in U.S.A can sometimes hardly reach the sea because of excessive use on the upper reaches. In some regions extreme water use could cause failure of vital ecosystems (Schubert, Schellnhuber 2008). 37 We could find term absolute water scarcity in some texts; both terms are referring to severe water shortages.

60

3.3.2 Shift in water perception Water is scarce resource in some areas in other areas there is still enough water for meeting all needs. Perception of water could change in upcoming period because of constantly rising demand for water connected to increasing population and climate changes. Climate change may cause shifts in precipitation patterns. These shifts may vary in different regions but the tendency will be decline in rainfalls in arid sub-tropics and to increase at high altitudes. Impacts can differ in specific areas but generally we can say that there could be great changes in precipitation – across seasons, to heavier precipitation events, even in regions experiencing an average decrease in rainfall; this may lead to risk of increasing both – floods and drought (Schubert, Schellnhuber 2008: 81). Greater evaporation contributes to overall decrease of water available. Other effects are connected to changes in areas dependent on winter rainfalls and glaciers. Glaciers act as water reservoirs and if they melt down not even there will be no constant water flow from melting glacier the microclimate will change and additional changes are highly probable. Problem could cause even rising sea level which could lead to saltwater intrusion into coastal groundwater aquifers (ibid: 82). Predictions says that some of the most densely populated regions such as Mediterranean, Middle East, India China and Pakistan will have to deal with severe water shortages (Hanjra, Quareshi 2010: 366). These shortages could lead into conflict behavior. Besides direct links from water scarcity to potential conflict behavior, there are other externally imposed stresses which may lead to it. Shortages of water are intimately linked to food security; many forms of energy production require reliable water resources; economic looses connected to water scarcity are huge38. These kinds of externally imposed stresses could lead to social unrest or political instability and may be presage of armed conflict (Kreamer 2012: 88). 3.3.3 Water scarcity and violence The competition over scarce resources was always very important part of human survival. Lack of resources, or from the other point of view possession of scarce resources are important part of nation reality. If water is scarce resource, competition for limited supplies can lead nations to see access to water as a matter of national security (Gleick 2012). The characteristics that makes water likely to be a source of strategic rivalry are (1) the degree of scarcity; (2) the extent to which the water supply is shared by more than one region or state;

38

Water related diseases and expenditures for healing; productivity decline or absenteeism (Kreamer 2012: 88).

61

(3) the relative power of the basin states and (4) the ease of access to alternative fresh water sources (ibid: 84-85). More or less violent conflicts with presence of water are appearing through our history 39 but we could expect more frequent water wars in upcoming period. There are two reasons for it. First, climate change will impact to water balance in many regions to such an extent that it will threaten its distribution – seasonally and in terms of quantity. Second; the increasing population growth and its rising demand for water and inability to satisfy it (Schubert, Schellnhuber 2008: 79). Despite increased probability of conflict over water the large-scale wars are not very probable. Regional water battles for economic and social development will be more common. As the water resources are not equally distributed the perception of water varies. In some regions there is enough water40 but in others they are very scarce, so the perception of water availability is determining likelihood of large-scale conflict over water. Human are able to survive without water just few days, that is why was water commonly used as an instrument of conflict. In the past depriving advancing armies and communities by denying them access to water has been a key element in military tactic for millennia; water was even use as direct weapon. But it has not always been the target of conflict, but sometimes the cause – we could find examples of these conflicts in East Africa‟s Kenya and Ethiopia (Kreamer 2012: 90). The links between the water resources and conflicts are starting with resource inequities which slowly lead to more poverty, more diseases and shortened lives and misery. This situation does not directly lead to conflict but long deprivation and feel of unjust situation may slowly escalate to social unrests which destabilizes political power in country and consequently may lead to conflict. Despite water wars evidence there is small probability that water conflicts will be increasing in numbers steadily. We could cite findings that presented Wolf (cited in Pearse-Smith 2012) who made extensive research about water and conflict and who stated that there has never been a single war fought over water (Wolf in Pearse-Smith 2012: 148). Conflict over water resources is not very probable because the cooperation of states over shared water resources is more convenient. Cooperation changes otherwise zero-sum game into positive-sum situation. Other argument says that these kinds of agreements show themselves as very resilient and stable 39

For example Ashurbanipal of Assysia seized control over water wells as part of his strategy of desert warfare against Arabia. We can find more examples in the Peter H. Gleick article Water and Conflict, International Security, 18 (1): 79-112. 40 Usually Europe is considered as region with enough water, but overuse of it and changes in water cycles may lead to disputes over water (Ludwig et al. 2011).

62

over time (Pearse-Smith 2012)41. Water plays important role in conflict history, but more as instrument of conflict than as cause. Furthermore cooperation over water proved to be more convenient than violence and conflict and that it is extremely stable through the time. Despite all abovementioned arguments about low probability of water conflict in the light of changing global environment we cannot build our future predictions on the history. Present climate models predict increased drought in some areas of the world and increased floods in others these changes linked with an accelerating variability in the timing, amount and areal distribution of precipitation will lead to unprecedented changes. These changes in connection with the absolute availability of water; fast growing population and its needs are very likely to contribute to tensions between states. The most vulnerable states in new reality will be developing countries in arid areas, but the changes in water cycles could lead even to disputes over water in developed world (Gleick 1993). Water is essential for our survival. Therefore our perception of sufficient access to water is crucial in securitization of this issue. We can see this process on reviews which deals with water scarcity42 or governmental documents.43 Water shortages are generally considered as threat to security and therefore we can find whole body of international treaties and international law dealing with this topic (Gleick 1993). But the complexity of water issues is wider that international regimes. Rising demand for water, inadequate quantity which is used and poor quality of water in most populated areas should raise concerns over security issues for the future. Depletion and extreme pollution of water are big problem not just connected to humankind but to the environment. The environment we are living in is extremely sensitive to water degradation. Its depletion could have severe consequences to food production and wide range of services we consider natural. Water does not have substitutes and therefore water security should be in the spotlight of our future security. Water have been widely used over history for conflict purposes, but as was argued above water never been cause of conflict. We are now entering an era where water will be as one of the essential source very precious. Changes in regional and global climate which are already happening lead us to similar scenario as is connected to other environmental problems 41

Arguments about cooperation over shared water resources rather than conflict can be found in majority of literature, for example: Schubert, Schellnhuber 2008; Gleick 2012; Falkenmark 1990. 42 Human Development Report 2006. Beyond Scarcity: Power, Poverty and the Global Water Crisis; UN Global Annual Assessment of Sanitation and Drinking water; World Health Organization. 43 U.S. National Intelligence Council report on Global Water Security 2012.

63

and potential security threats. Standing alone we are able to deal with water issues, but as these problems will multiply themselves and their consequences will be more severe there will be higher probability of riots and conflicts. Water scarcity may not have to be main cause for violent conflict, but it will be very strong determinant for it. 3.3.2 Soil degradation and decline in food production Water is essential for human survival; we are not able to survive without it. We can say similar statement about food as well. Humans are able to survive without food only short period of time. With growing global population and progressing of climate changes production of food have to face greater demand and greater challenges to meet these global demands for food. Food production is not separate process it is interconnected with several natural determinants which are crucial for successful production. Environmental degradation produced by human activities and demands could cause local, regional and most likely global consequences which may escalate to violent behavior. In the following subchapter we will discuss processes of soil degradation and its interconnectedness to decline in food productivity; so called Green Revolution and why it is not an answer to food production decline but more likely threat multiplier; securitization and potential for conflict behavior connected to soil and food production degradation. 3.3.2.1 Soil degradation The human production of food, feed, fiber and raw materials is highly dependent on soil. But soil also plays important role in maintaining the complex terrestrial ecosystems and climate systems of this planet. Degradation of soil is closely connected to population growth and human development. Constantly increasing demands for food and other materials contributes to land overuse and degradation as consequence. Soil degradation could be defined as measurable loss or reduction of the current or potential capability of soils to produce plant materials of desired quantity and quality.44 Soil degradation is also connected to off-site problems of sedimentation, carbon emissions, reduced water shed function, and changes in natural habitats leading to loss of genetic stock and biodiversity (Chen et al. 2002: 244). In 1991 in preparation of the world map on the status of human-induced soil degradation -

44

Soil degradation is closely connected to degradation of upper layers of land which are used for growing food, feed or fiber. Comparatively to land degradation which is broader term including different uses such as agriculture, transport, construction, recreation, etc. (Chen et al. 2002: 244).

64

GLASOD45 the ISRIC46 created general classification of soil degradation. It identifies four major types of degradation, including several subtypes – water erosion47; wind erosion48; chemical deterioration49; physical deterioration50 and degradation of biological activity (Oldeman 2000). 3.3.2.2 Soil erosion and food production As was already mentioned above that food production is closely linked to soil quality. With the increasing demand for food there is increasing risk that there will be extra stress on production which may lead to consequent soil degradation. But growing population and demand for food are not the only causes of soil depletion and food shortages. There are several clear causal links and many indirect and hidden sources of this degradation. One of the direct links is global warming which consequences may severely hit food production. Generally lower altitudes will be more affected by growing temperature through loss of cereal harvests and insufficient adaptive capacities (IPCC 2007). Vegetation is extremely sensitive to conditions of environment and changes towards warmer microclimate may have very negative impact on harvest capacity mainly in developing regions. We could argue with improving conditions in regions with higher altitude. Changes in climate towards warming may have these effects initially, but increase in production will be followed by rapid decrease because of the disruption of ecosystems (Stern 2006). Generally we can expect decline in production in developing regions linked to climate changes, broadening of drylands and changes in water cycles; and moderate increase of production in regions such as Russian Federation, North America, northern Europe and East Asia. The overall production of food is predicted to remain stabilize or mildly increasing (FAO 2005) but broad spectrum of authors points to possible opposite trends (Long et al. 2006; Stern 2006). Next problem for food production is fresh water. Water is crucial for successful agricultural production. In the reality of intensive demand for food products usage of irrigation is the most convenient way. Rain fed agriculture is sustainable way but enough and regular rainfalls are not so common. But irrigation brings several potential risks. Agriculture 45

Global Assessment of Soil Deterioration. International Soil Reference and Information Centre. 47 Loss of topsoil; terrain deformation/mass movement; off-site effects; reservoir sedimentation; flooding; coral reef and seaweed destruction. 48 Loss of topsoil; terrain deformation; over-blowing. 49 Loss of nutrients or organic matter; salinization; acidification; pollution; acid sulphate soils; eutrification. 50 Compaction and sealing and crusting; water-logging; lowering of water table; subsidence of organic soils; other physical activities such as mining and urbanization. 46

65

dependent on irrigation is highly reliant on fresh water resources, which could be problem mainly in the areas with water shortages. Excessive irrigation brings risks in the form of soil degradation through salinization, chemical and physical deterioration. These processes could degrade soil to extent that it may lose its fertile qualities (Chand 2010). Therefore excessive irrigation could cause degradation of soil quality and its productivity and water resources mainly in the regions which are already predisposed for living standards decrease. Extensive irrigation is not single factor. Problems with agricultural production in specific regions could be traced long ago to the history. Wide researches in 1950s and 1960s led to so called Green Revolution. Norman Borlaug created genetically modified crops that combined with the expanded use of fertilizers, other chemical inputs, and irrigation increased production of the food (depended on the region) from 50 % -250 %.(Chhetri, Chaudhary, 2001 ; Rosset, Collins, Lappé 2000). Suddenly from regions that suffered (sometimes extreme) food production shortages were regions that were able to export their production. Broad enthusiasm silenced those who called for precaution and even Borlaug himself who said that Green Revolution is not solution just temporal improvement (Ehrlich et al. 1993). Consequences of intensive use of Green Revolution technology were discovered several years later. Extensive use of chemical fertilizers, together with reduced usage of organic matter had adversely affected soil quality and increased soil erosion (National Research Council, 1989). Usage of genetically modified crops led to biodiversity loss that causes lover stability of system and created predispositions for diseases – another potential for shortages in production (Daly et al. 1998). This technology is also based on extensive water usage, but it was adopted mainly in the regions with production problem where access to the water is usually not very easy (Shiva 1991). Green revolution then did not lead to better living conditions but in some places even worsen it – extreme soil degradation, water depletion and shortages and not improved food situation led rather to dissatisfactions, than to more secure life. The last but not least potential threat to food security is decline in world fisheries. Some 20 % of the world population depends on local fisheries for protein and for many people it is the only animal protein in their diet (Ehrlich et al. 1993). Fish as resource is considered as renewable and therefore there are extensive fisheries in some areas. But climate changes together with changes in chemical composition of water and increasing pollution of world oceans clearly threatens this food source. In some places decline in fish is so severe that there are almost no fish at all (IPCC 2007). Even fisheries are considered as renewable resource their extent exploitation could lead to situation when fish will not be able to restore and they 66

become non-renewable. Loss of this food resource may lead to severe consequences mainly in developing and poor regions. 3.3.2.3 Decline in food production and violence Food is one of the essential elements of human survival, as such food production and food availability is therefore one of the essential interests of the state. But as majority of environmental problems which could threaten security food production is not separate process. Food production is significantly linked to environment. Regional climate is essential factor, because it influences changes in temperature, weather and precipitation; availability of natural resources is another crucial factor – soil and its fertility and suitable area are foundations for food production; the last factor is fresh water availability, one cannot grow crop if there is not enough water for nourishment. These factors together with infrastructure such as selection of grown crop51, agricultural and transport infrastructure, prevention and preparedness for potential food shortages are crucial for potential violent conflict (Schubert, Schellnhuber 2008). Sudden shortages or depletion of any of above mentioned factors could trigger domino effect with possible multiplication consequences. Inability to distribute food or effectively assure food production, food distribution respectively could cause riots and even escalation to violence. Violent situation is even more probable if there is enough food but serious inability to distribute it exists. Predictions for future development are very vigilant even if country is oriented toward agriculture. Risks in potential decline of production particularly in countries with weaker economies could cause radical decline of foreign currency income. Consequences of such decline could have wide impact on the whole economy of the state (Schubert, Schellnhuber 2008). With the growing population globally there is growing demand for food. Pressure to extend production may lead to extensive land use and usage of different additives (fertilizers, pesticides); this increased production would naturally led to soil exhaustion and decrease of production, but usage of additives enable artificial growth in food production; more additives equals more crop production, but only for very limited time. Soil exhaustion and rapid degradation cause radical declines in production which will impact country‟s economy and in the globalized world local and regional problems – decline in food production in this matter – are more likely to widen to other regions. Any decline of food production will reflect in prices

51

There are several problems – what kind of crop should be grown; for food production or for industrial use? Is it better for particular party to gain financial means from food sale, or is it better to be self-sufficient?

67

and increase the risk of overstretching country‟s economy. This could cause problem because economic capacities mainly in developing countries are highly limited and any disruption may cause overall destabilization. In this respect multilateral frameworks52 of international economic relations could have great influence over conflict resolution or escalation processes (Schubert, Schellnhuber 2008). Size and projected growth of global population are very important factors in present and future food production and demand. This substantial additional stress is not just on local level it is on the global level as well and it could cause crash of food production globally in the future (Daly et al. 1998). If there is not enough food supplies for population or food prices hike up violent conflict is very probable. This violent escalation is more likely in cities than in rural areas (so called „Bread riots‟53). Possible consequence of food shortages is migration which may have two consequences – either violence will decrease or it will move with migrants to other areas (Schubert, Schellnhuber 2008). Other major influence on society‟s conflict potential is social and community stability. Distribution of wealth and income is very important mainly if there are severe food shortages. The problems could arise in the moment when majority of population have no access to food and small minority is almost unaffected by food shortages. This inequality could be very strong trigger for social riots that may consequently escalate into violence and conflict. Similar situation may arise whit constantly growing food prices, which could threaten core existence of middle class and its consequent downgrading. But this scenario does not have as wide conflict potential as above mentioned situation (Schubert, Schellnhuber 2008: 98-99). Last but not least situation which has great influence on conflict potential is political stability and governance. Government should provide such rules and laws which secure constant supply of food for all citizens. This should be provided either through support of agriculture and possibilities for small farmers to grow, or through consistent policies that will provide food supplies either through import, or export54 (Schubert, Schellnhuber 2008). To establish secure environment it is especially important to create scenarios for coping with food shortages. State food supplies and scenarios for distribution are crucial in successful and mainly peaceful overcoming of unexpected failure in food supplies. If the government fails to secure crisis scenarios there is high probability that violent and conflict potential increases 52

The International Monetary Fund; World Trade Organization; etc. Riots caused mainly because of high food prices, or unavailability of food. We can find examples in Andoni, Schwelder 1996; Engel 1997; Berazneva, Lee 2013; Sternberg 2012. 54 Export strategy is oriented on further trading with desired outcome of secure food supplies. 53

68

instantly, as it happened in India (Chand 2005). Policies and governments are responsible for food security even on the global scale. As several studies showed there is still enough production to satisfy global demand for food (FAO 2005) but distribution (local, regional, global) is problem that is almost impossible to solve (Jenkins, Scanlan 2001). Soil degradation and food supplies decrease are closely connected. Soil is crucial for crop production and its depletion may have severe consequences not just for food production but for environment and ecosystems as well. There is wide potential for various violence and conflict stages. From small local riots to intrastate conflict with possible escalation to another states. People react to food shortages differently. They may migrate which could cause deescalation of tense situation on the other hand there is great risk of escalation in the migration destination, we will speak more about migration in the upcoming section. People may also demand food from government and there is great possibility that if the government is not stable and whole country is politically disrupted probability of conflict is higher we could mention crisis in Rwanda as example55 (Scheffran, Battaglini 2011). Food shortages are part of human history for many centuries and there are more than enough examples when food unavailability was cause for riots. Even in modern history we are able to find empirical evidences of food production decline/ shortages resulting in food crises with the potential to amplify or even initiate destabilization and violent conflict (Homer-Dixon et al. 1993). The future trends says about extensive food problems; they are mainly connected to population growth; soil and environment degradation; climate change and resource shortages (Schubert, Schellnhuber 2008; FAO 2005; Stern 2006). As most of other environmental problems soil degradation and linked food insecurity are closely connected to other problems and factors – spill-over affect, multiplication of problems and interconnectedness are main factor for future possibility of conflict.

4 Discussion and Conclusion Natural environment have been always part of humans life. Demands on nature started to be larger and more complex with the beginnings of industrial revolution. Through time we could see initiatives and diverse societies concerned with natural environment and its protection. 55

Conflict in Rwanda was caused by several serious factors where environmental degradation – in several forms – was just one of them.

69

After the Second World War several authors dealt with questions concerning quality and sustainability of our environment. These concerns catalyze into several books and articles from which most influential was Rachel Carson‟s book Silent spring. This book changed the way how people perceived nature. From that moment concerns about environment and its depletion started to move from periphery into front lines of interest both – scientists and public. Discussions were concerning rapid population growth, limits to growth or limits of environment. Environmental issues became part of international relations in 1972 United Nations Environmental Conference on the Environment in Stockholm. This international recognition of the issues as relevant problem bought them credit on the one side, on the other side number of critics grew even faster. Environmental issues found their way into security studies through work of Lester Brown‟s Redefining National Security and subsequently through article Redefining Security from Richard Ullman. Both Brown and Ullman and many other afterwards argued about necessity of redefinition of security in the light of new primarily non-military threat that threatens security of nations, states and people. With the end of the Cold War the new issues and new possibilities emerged in the field of security studies and more and more authors were dealing with threats or potential threats that were not based in military; from all we will mention environmental depletion; resource depletion and degradation; climate change; diseases. Several studies were made through 1990s about environmental issues as triggers of violent conflict. These issues became regular part of international negotiations and international meetings and even part of domestic policies and national security strategies in many countries. We may say that securitization of environmental issues were very strong through this period. Scholars of security studies mostly ignored new trends after end of the Cold War, for most of them military based arguments about national security stayed in the center of their interest. Opponents of securitization of environmental issues who react on new trend summed up their objections into several general arguments. Maybe the widest cited argument could be represented by Stephen Walt who said that issues of war and peace in strictly military terms are too important to be marginalized. Other arguments against concept of environmental security are fundamental difference between environmental problems and their solutions and pursuit of security; difference between traditional security issues and environmental problems is fundamental in creation of national security threats; or the fundamental difference between

70

security and environmental theses about the reality and survival. In the case of environmental issues the criticism of widening of security studies is quite coherent and clearly stated. Environmental issues became part of security studies through process of securitization, which we know from theory of Copenhagen school. We can find these issues as relevant part of security studies literature and environmental issues are understand as sub discipline of security studies (Williams 2008; Wais 2009; Deudney and Mathew 1999). If we look closer on the concept we can see that these threats are more frequently linked to concept of human security as directly to security studies. This is because of specificity of environmental issues. These threats pose radically different risks as traditional military threats. They are non-linear; there is significantly high unpredictability of extreme events; these events usually pose threats to local or regional societies and not to the whole nation as traditional threats. These are reasons why environmental issues are usually linked to concept of human security than to national security. With this different perception of environmental security it is far more difficult for scholars identify issues, which are relevant for national security. Environment is extremely complex and closely connected system and we still quite do not understand its interactions and processes. From this point of view there is almost impossible to identify which issues are more relevant and which are not for security. Similar problem is great diversity of problems around the globe. For example, for some states rising sea-level is great threat to mere existence, for other states rising sea-level is abstract scientific term which does not seem threatening at all and there are myriads of environmental issues closely linked to specific conditions. This great diversity in perception of security dimension of environment makes it difficult to create any theory or approach through which we would be able to identify environmental issues. Besides great diversification of environmental threats some of them could be very sensitive from moral and ethical point of view. For example overpopulation is widely cited as threat multiplier (Bailey 2010; Bilsborrow 2002), or in some articles we may find hidden references to overpopulation of some regions as potential security threats (Kaplan 1994). When the environment is not able to bear its population more people may very easy exceed carrying capacity of environment and subsequently destabilize it. This destabilization may lead to resource depletion, food and water scarcity and consequently social and political instability. But can we establish population growth as security threat? Is it possible to tag growing population as potential security threat? And even if so, how would we react to this “threat” and what will be our actions toward securing against it? We may argue that China did 71

so through its one child policy, but this is probably not the relevant example. Overpopulation is definitely one of the greatest triggers of environmental degradation and in the future it may pose large-scale problems, on the other hand the process how to deal with it may be even more difficult. Concept of overpopulation as threat multiplier is despite moral questions widely accepted as one of the non-military threats and we will have to deal with it in the future. Similar problem may be biodiversity. It is not as controversial as overpopulation but it may pose even larger threats. Because there is no scientific consensus about how many species do we have on the Earth and how important they are it is almost impossible to finish process of securitization. Biodiversity is crucial for survival of life but again it is almost impossible to identify it as security threat and to finish process of securitization. Environmental issues passed long way; from being too general and lack any specificity, to clearly defined and reviewed. These issues were accepted as security threats and with the changing global environment it is still more and more clear that they earned status of security threats. Some of them are clear and everybody identify them as potential or relevant threat some of them are still evolving and therefore there is debate over their classification as security threats and some of them are highly debatable either from moral or scientific point of view. In the changed reality of post Cold War world national security and formation of threats to security moved from highly state centered structures to process of securitization which is highly different from the traditional one.

4.1 Is there coming to securitization of environmental topics on the Security Studies field? Despite the fact that new issues were penetrating into security studies before the end of the Cold War the real interest in new issues for security started after end of the Cold War. Security studies were and still are primarily oriented to military threats to security and new issues had to find the way into the field through process of securitization, which was created by researches in Copenhagen school. Through this process any kind of event, process or object can become a threat to security – the process usually proceed from depoliticized to politicized to end as securitized and is rather intuitive and implicit than obviously set. Securitizing actor has to persuade audience through his speech act about existence and priority of existential threat and audience has to accept it and allow change of usual rules and procedures. In this sense “security” is auto-referential practice, because through it topic becomes a security issue; not necessarily because it is real security threat but because it is 72

presented like one (Buzan et al. 1998: 24). Process of securitization then allows to nonmilitary issues to become recognized security threats. This process is very important primarily in changed reality of international relations and changing reality of living conditions on the Earth. Potential threats to security today are highly specific, non linear and disproportional. What is perceived as threat to one country does not need to be perceived as threat at all to other country. Specific conditions of the country are significant factors influencing process of securitization – geographical, economic, social and political dimensions of the country are crucial in the process of securitization of environmental issues. In the following lines we will show this process in academic field, international level and national level and prove that environmental issues become relevant part of security issues. 4.1.1 Academic level As was already mentioned above discussion about relevance of environmental issues on academic level is lively for several decades now. Opponents of this concept argue about specific dynamics and whole load of impulses and conditions that may trigger violent conflict. They argue that environmental issues are (if at all) just one part of complex structure leading to violent conflict (Barnett 2003); some of them reject an idea about environmental issues as (one of) the trigger to conflict (Deudney 1990). Proponents of this premise try to prove that environmental issues may be important factors in the conflict emergence. On the examples they argue that environmental degradation, depletion and lack of access to natural resources can lead to outbreak of violent conflict (Biswas 2011). Barnett and Adger (2007) further argue that ecosystem integrity is crucial for the population‟s sustainable livelihood; certain environmental conditions – that may result from climate change or overuse of resources – can pose an acute threat to security. These changes increase individual‟s vulnerability. Some scholars argue that environmental calamities may trigger policy choices that can catalyze a potential conflict or worsen an existing one (Biswas 2011; Schubert, Schellnhuber 2008; Smith 2007). The argumentation in favor of securitization speaks about physical processes such as sea-level rise, large-scale soil erosion, or impact of extreme weather events which may threaten the bare existence of the state and its living conditions (Barnett 2003); great problem is also externalization of threats – their causes may be unknown or on the territory of another state (Barnett and Adger 2007; Biswas 2011). Proponents of securitization use lot of empirical examples of environmental degradation, or catastrophes that caused threats to national security – flooding in Bangladesh; earthquakes in Chile or Haiti; hurricanes or extreme draughts. All these authors are pointing to need of securitization of environmental 73

issues. We can find securitization processes in academic articles (Biswas 2011; Brown et al. 2007; McDonald 2013), books (Gleditsch 1997; Dalby 2009) or reports (Woodrow Wilson center; Center for Strategic & International Studies; IOM). Attempts of securitization may be seen even on the individual level from expert‟s field, Hans Blix former inspector of the research committee of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq said in a recorded interview: “I think we overestimate the danger of terrorist threat. There are things with equal or greater importance, such as risks related to the environment ... For me the problem of environment is more disturbing than the problem of peace or war. I‟m more worried about global warming than the major military conflicts” (Cîrdei 2011). We may find all range of reactions and arguments about securitization of environmental issues, from negative, guarded, to slightly positive, to radical; but we may conclude that securitization of the environmental issues in the academic field was successfully finished. 4.1.2 International level The securitization on the international level is clearer and positively oriented to the securitization of the environmental issues. We may observe heading towards positive and active position towards environmental issues from the 1970s. In 1972 United Nations Environmental Conference on the Environment was held in Stockholm. It was in Stockholm where United Nations Environment Program was established and moreover, the centrality of North – South issues and the vital role of NGOs in the new environmental politics were both clearly acknowledged there. In 1983 United Nations General Assembly established World Commission on Environment and Development; this Commission led by Gro Harlem Bruntlad released report Our Common Future in 1987 where was for the first time mentioned and defined sustainable development. Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and U.N. conferences about issues such as population and development (Cairo 1994) were definite recognition of importance of environmental issues. We can see the attempts for securitization in Montreal protocol signed in 198756; Kyoto protocol signed in 199857; or contemporary efforts for post-Kyoto agreement. Securitization of the environmental issues may be seen also through annual COP58 conferences. But probably the most famous securitization process can be traced through periodical reports from 56

Montreal protocol on Substances that Deplete Ozone Layer; more on the website: http://ozone.unep.org/new_site/en/montreal_protocol.php. 57 Kyoto protocol commits its parties by setting internationally binding emission reduction targets; more on the website: http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php. 58 Annually meetings of the parties of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC or FCCC) – COP - Conference of the Parties; more on the website: http://www.cbd.int/cop.

74

IPCC59. IPCC is scientific body established by participating states on the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts. The IPCC is an intergovernmental body and it is open to all member countries of the United Nations (UN) and WMO. Currently 195 countries are members. The IPCC reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change (IPCC). These reports are well known for their alarmist view on the climate change and its consequences. On the other hand after extremely alarmist first two Reports IPCC changed their rhetoric and they are even accused that some of their conclusions are too comforting (Campbell et al. 2007). If we look on the IPCC reports from the securitization optics we may see clear sign of securitization process – identification of large-scale and non-military threats; extremely complex and non linear character of these threats and unevenness of distribution and impacts. IPCC reports are not the only ones who are pointing to the securitization of the environmental issues. We can see similar processes in NATO which is focusing on the environmental issues and their potential to threaten security. Military activities often have an adverse effect on the environments in which they occur. Damage to the environment from these activities can threaten livelihoods and habitats and thus breed instability. NATO is not just orient to environmental consequences of their military presence. NATO‟s secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen in his speech in 2009 made clear position about climate change “…because I think the time has come for a change in our approach. First, I think we now know enough to start moving from analysis to action. Because the trend lines from climate change are clear enough, and grim enough, that we need to begin taking active steps to deal with this global challenge (...)We know that there will be more extreme weather events – catastrophic storms and flooding.(...)We know sea levels will rise.(...)We know there will be more droughts.(...)We know that in some areas, food production is likely to drop.(...)We know that Arctic ice is retreating.(...)When it comes to climate change, building security doesn’t only mean with the

59

Intergovernmental Pannel on Climate Change

75

military. But it also doesn’t exclude the military either; on the contrary, our traditional security structures will have an important role to play. Which brings me my third point: I believe that NATO should begin a discussion on how we – NATO as an organization, and individual Allies as well – can do better to address the security aspects of climate change“ (NATO 2009). We may see securitization not just in the NATO‟s position. OECD has department dealing with environmental issues and interconnection of environment and security60. We may conclude this sub section with the statement that environmental issues successfully passed process of securitization on the international level. Environmental issues are widely seen as threats to regional and international security and they are relevant part of the security consensus on the international level. 4.1.3 National level Probably the most important process of securitization has been passed on the state level. In the neo realist reality of the international relations where state keeps its supreme position and where survival of the state is still the most important goal environmental issues become as part of security concerns. This process is very diversified and it did not pass in every country because of the specificity of environmental issues. Despite the fact that global climate changes have or will have increased impact on the living standards in the foreseeable future these changes will be highly dependent on the geographical, political, economic and social dimensions of the particular state. These conditions therefore sometimes generate surprising proponents of securitization of environmental issues. Great Britain is well known for its active position towards environmental issues and their security dimension. Great Britain went through securitization process through 1990s and continued in the new millennium. Probably the most famous securitization document in this respect is report from Sir Nicolas Stern. In 2005 Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown asked Sir Nicholas Stern to lead a major review of the economics of climate change. Widely known Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change was released in 2006 and it began debate about possible consequences and impacts of the climate change on the human well being and possible decrease in human living conditions. The review points to the increasing

60

Report “Security and Environmental variables: the debate and analysis of links in the Sahel (2010); “State-ofthe-Art-review of Environment, Security and Development co-operation (2000). More information on the website: http://www.oecd.org/environment/.

76

risks of serious, irreversible impacts from climate change associated with business as usual (BAU) paths for emissions and it threatens the basic elements of life for people around the world61. British Prime Minister Tony Blair stated that the Review demonstrated that scientific evidence of global warming was overwhelming and its consequences disastrous if the world failed to act (BBC 2006). The then Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown promised that UK would lead the international response to tackle climate change (Ibid). Serious impacts and consequences of the climate change were stated by the leading researches and authorities from economy collected in the document released by UK Treasury62. Despite the strong support and consensus through society and academic circles there is a strong opposition and negative responses on the Review. Opponents assailed scientific relevance of the Review and from unnecessarily alarmist tone. As the Review is focused on the economic consequences of the climate change reactions from economists were also plentiful – positive and negative. On the Review itself and on the broad discussion that was held after the release of the Review we can clearly identify securitization process of the environmental issues represented by umbrella concept of climate change. Efforts to deal with these changes become relevant part of political, economic and social reality63 and perception of the environmental issues as security threats is nowadays relevant part of security discussion. We may find similar securitization process on the European Union level. Despite the fact that E.U. is not regular nation, but it consist from the different nations its focus on the environmental issues and its securitization is clear. We can see it on the documents released by Commission64 and aimed policies.65 We can see it also on the joint position on the

61

Whole Review can be found on the website: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.hmtreasury.gov.uk/sternreview_index.htm. 62 Statements supporting conclusions of the Review can be found on the website: http://www.hmtreasury.gov.uk/d/20061028_Quotes-7.pdf. 63 We can see this in numerous articles and actions; in political dimension e.g. https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/adapting-to-climate-change; https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-of-energy-climate-change. In economic dimension e.g. http://www.cccep.ac.uk/Home.aspx; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12384389. In social dimension e.g. http://www.sdu.nhs.uk/documents/publications/Adaptation_Guidance_Final.pdf; http://www.scie.org.uk/publications/ataglance/ataglance23.asp. 64 “Climate Change and International Security. Paper from High Representative and the European Commission to the European Council.” Released March 2008. 65 More on the websites: http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/brief/eu/index_en.htm; http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/eccp/index_en.htm.

77

international forums.66 This is most probably caused by strong and leading position of the Great Britain in the field with wide consensus between other European countries. Probably the most surprising securitization process passed in the U.S.A. United States of America had strong position towards the climate change and its environmental consequences which may be the best described by statement of George H. W. Bush on the 1992 Earth Summit “the American way of life is not negotiable”. This position changed already in the National Security Strategy Documents from 1994 and 1995; we can see submission to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea; in NAFTA‟s environmental and labor side agreements; signatures of Biodiversity treaty and Desertification Convention; etc. (Report). President William J. Clinton made several public statements about seriousness of the environmental change e.g. “… Hunger and disease continue to take a tragic toll, especially among the world‟s children. The migrant neglect of our global environment threatens our children‟s health and their very security (p. 3). (…)But also because roots of conflict are also often entangled with the roots of environmental neglect and the calamities of famine and disease (p. 16)67.” (Report 1995). President Clinton and his Vice President Albert Gore acted as strong advocates of environmental issues on the national and international level. We can find shift towards securitization of environmental issues in the statements of several U.S. officials.68 Process of securitization of the environmental issues was slowed down when George W. Bush entered the office in January 2001 and consequent terrorist attacks on the WTC in September 2001. With the positive evolution of the security from U.S. point of view and new President Barack Obama entering office in January 2009 securitization of the environmental changes got back to the spot light. We can see this process for example in President Obama‟s actions on the COP 15 in Copenhagen in 200969; in State of the Union address 201070; or in his inaugural speech.71 The securitization process in the U.S.A. is not as

66

As the E.U. is not federation and states mostly defend their own interests, in the case of international climate (environmental) policy we may find quite strong consensus. (Groen and Niemann 2010; Jordan 2005; Vogler 1999) 67 Extracts from President Clinton‟s Address to the 48th United Nations General Assembly, September 27, 1993. 68 For example: Ambassador Madeleine K. Albright Keynote address to the 1994 Symposium for the Environmental Defense fund on the Global Environment; Director of Central Intelligence Agency R. James Woolsey and his Address to the Executive Club of Chicago in 1993; Secretary of Defense William J. Perry in “A New Security,” Today: America‟s Forces Protect the Environment; or in Bill proposed by Benjamin Gilman in the House of Representatives: H.R. 575 To Establish the National Committee on the Environment and National Security, in January 26, 1993. 69 Obama‟s speech on the COP 15: http://climatechangemedia.ning.com/profiles/blogs/full-text-of-obamaspeech-at. 70 Full address can be found on the website: http://photos.state.gov/libraries/ukraine/164171/pdf/state_union10.pdf.

78

evolved as we could see in United Kingdom and definitely is not finished, on the other hand we can see clear signs and actions that prove securitization process of the environmental issues is under way. The latest action in this respect is releasing of Department of Defense Climate change adaptation roadmap72 and wide range of projects and researches73 focusing on the security implications of the environmental issues. We can see proceeding securitization processes in many countries which makes strong empiric evidence about securitization of the environmental issues is either proceeding or it is already finished. As we look on the global picture we can see that securitization is mainly proceeding on the global North, but the need for securitization of the environment is needed primarily on the global South where impacts and consequences of the climate changes are most visible. This trend is most likely connected mainly with demographics, social and political dimension which are most important in the process of securitization as was argued in previous part of the thesis. There are also strong pressures to create global consensus about need to protect environment and natural resources, which we can see through diverse agreements and conventions. But these efforts to build global environmental regime may crash with historical fear of (mainly) developing countries, which could perceive international laws about environmental protection as return to imperialism from 19th and 20th century (Dalby 2009). With the closing of the section about securitization there is one question constantly returning to the attention of the author, if it is possible to create or complete global awareness about need of securitization of the environmental issues? Diversity and specificity of environmental issues character leaves little possibilities for it, on the other hand we can see great efforts in creating proper environment for securitization and moreover we can see activities of the countries that are traditionally opposing securitization of environmental issues e.g. China74

71

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/22/us/politics/climate-change-prominent-in-obamas-inauguraladdress.html?_r=0. 72 Full version of the Roadmap can be found on the website: http://www.acq.osd.mil/ie/download/green_energy/dod_sustainability/2012/Appendix%20A%20%20DoD%20Climate%20Change%20Adaption%20Roadmap_20120918.pdf. 73 Department of Defense's environmental research programs SERDP and ESTCP: http://www.serdp.org/; or Think Tank: The Center for Climate and Security: http://climateandsecurity.org/. 74 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15444858.

79

4.2 Which environmental issues are in the focal point of the security studies? And: Why are in the focal point these topics in particular? This thesis is focused on the three main environmental issues which showed in the discussion about security. The main and we can argue that umbrella concept Climate change is most widely used and covers most of the environmental changes that may in some way threaten nation or human security. Large-scale degradation and depletion of the local or regional environment may threaten livelihood or bare living conditions which may subsequently lead to dissatisfaction and riots and may escalate into violent conflicts. Climate change is inevitable and irreversible process and we still do not quite understand what exactly cause these changes. But we already can observe damages to human environment and infrastructures, which are consequences of the changing climate. As we can see in the numerous reviews and reports dealing with consequences of climate change probable future changes pose the greatest threats to human security. Climate change is fundamental from the security point of view because it covers most of the threats – potential or real – that states and human beings may face. Water and soil depletion are in the center of the security studies as well, because they are crucial for human being survival – we are not able to live without the water and food. The empirical evidence shows that there is on the one hand larger amount of water in the global circulation on the other hand there is still less water available and suitable for humans. The empirical evidence showed that water is one of the impulses to conflict – in the history and now as well75. Accessibility to water is not just matter of drinking, water is crucial for growing and for irrigation in arid areas. Where is no water, there is basically no life and all projections of the future development says about decreasing of water situation. Soil is also crucial for ability to feed people, if soil is degraded or lost there is almost no other way how to ensure basic nutrition for inhabitants. Primary shortage of food with constantly rising population is one of the causes for riots and probable escalation to violent conflict. This leads us to last issue that is and will be crucial in the future – migration. As the abovementioned issues are clearly environmental and connected to natural resources and processes migration is primarily social process. Consequences of climate change and soil and water depletion threatens basic human living conditions. Most natural reaction is to move out of the affected region somewhere where living conditions are suitable and secure. Migration 75

For example: Gleick 1993; Kreamer 2012

80

of large amounts of people could be perceived as potential or real security threat in the destination area. Inhabitants of the destination area may feel threatened by newcomers from social, economic or even political point of view, or they may feel threaten because of the exceeding limits of local environment. This sense of insecurity may escalate into violence. Abovementioned environmental issues are in the spotlight of the security studies because of their direct impact to the human security. They are most widely cited in the securitization processes as we could see above and therefore they are most interesting for security studies scholars. These issues are also interconnected and we can observe multiplying and spill-over effects which are also widely used in the security studies researches.

4.3 What is potential direction for future development in this field? What is the prognosis in this respect? Most of the articles and works deal with the possible future development of the environmental issues. The problem is not exactly the lack of information we can find almost all possible development incorporated into development scenarios. The problem is that there is not enough evidence and information about what is or could be future development. We are entering the age of extensive changes on the Earth, but we have no idea how it could look like. Most of the prognoses speak about continual depletion and degradation of the environment and connected consequences humans, on the other hand real development may prove all of these prognoses wrong. Environmental security field proved its own relevance through securitization processes on several levels and is now relevant part of the security dialogue. In the short and medium-term we will most probably deal with the prognosis of scenarios which predict environmental impacts on the larger scale and therefore environmental issues will become even more relevant to security that they are today. It is also very probable that impacts of the climate changes will occur even in the regions that are now standing on the periphery of current impacts. These changes may lead to depletion of the global living conditions which will mean degradation of the life style of global population. Security studies concerned with environmental issues may focus on the possibilities how to prevent negative global development. The main problem and obstacle in the way to deal with inevitable environmental change is not slow and extremely diversified securitization of the issues, but the possible costs of prevention/mitigation to climate changes are extremely high76

76

See: Stern Review.

81

and nobody is really keen to invest in something as abstract as possible future extreme consequences of environmental change.

82

References ● Adamson, Fiona B. 2006. “Crossing Borders: International Migration and National Security.” International Security 31(1): 165-199. ● Amery, Hussein A. 2002. “Water Wars in the Middle East: A Looming Threat.” The Geographical Journal, 168(4) (Water Wars? Geographical Perspectives): 313 – 323. ● Andoni, L., Schwedler, J. 1996. „Bread Riots in Jordan.“ Middle East Report, No. 201, Israel and Palestine: Two States, Bantustans or Binationalism? Pp.40-42. ● Anderegg, William R. L., Prall, James W., Harold, Jacob, Schneider, Stephen H. 2010. “Expert Credibility in Climate Change.” PNAS, 107(27). Available online at: http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full.pdf. ● Bailey, Adrian J. 2010. “ Population Geographies and Climate Change”. Progress in Human Geography, 35(5): 686-695. ● Baldwin, David, A. 1995. “Security Studies and the End of the Cold War.” World Politics 48 (1): 117 – 141. ● Barnett, Jon. 2003 “Security and Climate Change.” Global Environmental Change (13): 7 – 17. ● 2007. “Environmental Security.” Pp. 183 – 203 in Contemporary Security Studies, edited by A. Collins. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ● Barnett, Jon, Adger, Neil W. 2007. ”Climate Change, Human Security and violent conflict.” Political Geography, 26: 639-655. ● BBC. 2006. “Climate Change Fight „Can‟t http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6096084.stm#top.

wait‟.

Available

online

at:

● Bezareva, Julia, Lee, David, R. 2013. “Explaining the African food riots of 2007-2008: An empirical analysis.”Food Policy, 39: 28-39. ● Biswas, Niloy Ranjan. 2011. “Is the Environment a Security Threat? Environmental Security beyond Securitization.” International Affairs Review, XX(1): 1-22. ● Bilsborrow, Richard R. 2002. “Migration, Population Change, and the Rural Environment.” The Woodrow Wilson Center, 8: 69-95. ● Black, Richard. 2001. “Environmental Refugees: Myth or Reality?” Working Paper no.34 New Issues in Refugee Research, March 2001, University of Sussex, Sussex, UK. ● 2011. “Preparing for Climate Change „Will Boost Economy‟”. BBC News, February 8th. Available online at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment12384389.

83

● 2011. „China „won‟t Follow US‟ on Carbon Emissions.” BBC News. October 25th. Available online at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15444858. ● Black, Richard, Adger, Neil W., Arnell, Nigel W., Dercon, Stefan, Geddes, Andrew, Thomas David S.G. 2011. „The Effect of Environmental Change on Human Migration.“ Global Environmental Change, 21S: S3-S11. ● Brown, Lester, R. 1972. “Redefining National Security.” Worldwatch paper 14. ● Brown, Oli, Hammill, Anne, McLeman, Robert. 2007. “Climate Change as the „New‟ Security Threat: Implications for Africa.” International Affairs (Royal Institute of international Affairs 1944-), 83(6): 1141-1154. ● Busby, Joshua W. 2008. “Who Cares about the Weather? Climate Change and U.S. National Security.” Security Studies, 17: 468-504. ● Campbell, Kurt M., Gulledge, Jay, McNeil, J.R., Podesta, John, Ogden, Peter, Fuerth, Leon, Woolsey, James R., Lennon, Alexander T.J., Smith, Julianne, Weitz, Richard, Mix, Derek. 2007. “The Age of Consequences: The Foreign Policy and National Security Implications of Global Climate Change.”Center for a New American Security, Washington. ● Carson, Rachel. 1962. “Silent Spring.” Boston: Houghton Miffin. ● Centre For Climate Change http://www.cccep.ac.uk/Home.aspx.

Economics

and

Policy.

Available

online:

● Cha, Victor, D. 2000 . “Globalization and the Study of International Security.” Journal of Peace Research 37(3): 391-403. ● Chand, S. 2005. “Whither India‟s Food Policy? From Food Security to Food Deprivation.” Economic and Political Weekly, 40(11): 1055-1062. ● 2010. “Challenges of soil quality of Indian soils vis-á-vis food security.”Current Science, 99(3): 278-280. ● Chhetri, Netra, Chaudhary, Pashupati. 2011. “Green Revolution: Pathways to Food Scecurity in an Era of Climate Variability and Change?”. Journal of Disaster Research, 6(5): 486- 497. ● Chen, Jie, Chen Jing-zhang, Tan, Man-zhi, Gong, Zi-tong. 2002. „Soil degradation: a global problem endangering sustainabledevelopment.“Journal of Geographical Sciences 12(2): 243252. ● Chichilnisky, Graciela, Luterbacher, Urs. 2012. “Climate Change, Security, and Redistribution: How Can Political Dilemmas Linked to the Global Environment Be Solved?” Brown Journal of World Affairs XVIII(11): 227-260.

84

● Cîrdei, Alin. 2011. “Climate Change and Environmental Degradation – Threats or Challenges to Human Security.” Military Art and Science, 3(63): 254-262. ● Clark, William A.V. 2007. “Environmentally Induced Migration and Conflict.”An Expertise for the German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU), Los Angeles, Berlin. ● Commoner, Barry. 1974. The Closing Circle. Toronto: Bantam Books.

● COP (Conference of the Parties). Available online: http://www.cbd.int/cop. ● Dabelko, Geoffrey D. and David D Dabelko. 1995. “Environmental security: issues of conflict and redefinition.” Environmental change and security project report (1): 3-13. ● Dalby, Simon. 2009. “Security and Environmental Change.” Cambridge, UK; Malden, MA: Polity. ● 2002. “Environmental Security.” Minneapolis: University of Minnesota press. ● 2002. “Security and Ecology in the Age of Globalization.” In “Environmental Change & Security Project Report”. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, 8. ● Deudney, Daniel. 1990. “The Case Against Linking Environmental Degradation and National Security”. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 19: 461-476. ● 1991. “Environment and Security: Muddled Thinking.” Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (April): 23 – 28. ● Department for Environment, Food & rural Affairs. Adapting to Climate Change. Available online at: https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/adapting-to-climate-change. ●Department of Energy and Climate Change. Available online https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-of-energy-climate-change.

at:

● Department of Defense. 2012. “Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap.” Available online at: http://www.acq.osd.mil/ie/download/green_energy/dod_sustainability/2012/Appendix%20A %20-%20DoD%20Climate%20Change%20Adaption%20Roadmap_20120918.pdf. ● Ehrlich, Paul R. 1968. “Population Bomb.” New York: Ballantine books. ● Ehrlich, Paul R., Ehrlich, Anne H. and Daily, Gretchen C. 1993. “Food Security, Population and Environment.” Population and Development Review 19(1): 1-32. ● Engen, Barbara A. 1997. “Not by Bread Alone: Subsistence Riots in Russia during World War I.” The Journal of Modern History, 69(4): 696-721. ● European Commission. 2008. “Climate Change and International Security.“ S113/08. Available online at: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/reports/99387.pdf. 85

● “What is the EU doing About Climate Change?” available online at: http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/brief/eu/index_en.htm. ●Evans, Graham, Newnham, Jeffrey. 1998. “The Penguin dictionary of international relations.” London: Penguin Books ● HM Treasury UK. Responses to Stern Review. Available online at: http://www.hmtreasury.gov.uk/d/20061028_Quotes-7.pdf. ● Falkenmark, Malin. 1990. “Global Water Issues Confronting Humanity.” Journal of Peace Research (Special Issue on the Challenge of Global Policy), 27(2): 177 – 190. ● FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2005. “Impact of Climate Change, Pests and Diseases on Food Security and Poverty Reduction. Background Document, 31st Session of the Committee on World Food Security, May 2005. FAO, Rome. ● Findlay, Allan M. 2011. “Migrant destinations in an era of environmental change.” Global Environmental Change 21S: S50-S58. ● Gleditsch, Nils Petter, eds. 1997. “Conflict and the Environment.” 2. Environment, 33. ● Gleick, Peter H. 1993. “Water and Conflict: Fresh Water Resources and International Security.” International Security 18(1): 79 – 112. ● Gopalan, C. 1995. “Towards Food and Nutrition Security.” Economic and Political Weekly 30(52): A134-A141. ● Grᴂger, Nina. 1996. “Environmental Security?” Journal of Peace Research, 33(1): 109 – 116. ● Groen, Lisanne, Niemann, Arne. 2010. “EU Actorness under political pressure at the UNFCCC COP15 climate change negotiations.” UACES conference paper: Exchanging Ideas on Europe: Europe at a Crossroads Bruges, 6-8 September. ● Gurr, Ted Robert. 1985. “On the Political Consequences of Scarcity and Economic Decline.” International Studies Quarterly (29): 51 – 75. ● Hanjra, Munir A., Qureshi, Ejaz M. 2010. “Global Water crisis and future food security in an era of climate change.” Food Policy, 35: 365 – 377. ● Hardin, Garrett. 1968. “Tragedy of the Commons.” Science, 162: 1243- 1248. ● Homer-Dixon, Thomas F., Boutwell, J., Rathjens, G. 1993. “Environmental change and violent conflict.”Scientific American, 268:8. ● Homer-Dixon, Thomas F. 1991. “On the Threshold: Environmental Changes as Causes of Acute Conflict.” International Security, 16 (fall): 76 – 116.

86

● 1994. “Environmental Scarcities and Violent Conflict: Evidence from Cases.” International Security 19(1): 5–40. ● 1999. “Thresholds of Turmoil. Environmental Scarcities and Violent Conflict.” Pp. 61 - 90 in Contested grounds: Security and Conflict in the New Environmental Politics, edited by D. Deundly and R. A. Matthew. Albany: State University of New York Press. ● Hugo, Graeme. 1996. “Environmental Concerns and International Migration.” International Migration Review, 30 (1): 105-131. ● Intelligence Community Assessment. 2012. “Global Water Scarcity.” IC-coordinated Paper. Available online at: http://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Special%20Report_ICA%20Global%20Water%20Securi ty.pdf. ● IPCC (Intergovernmental http://www.ipcc.ch/index.htm.

Panel

on

Climate

Change).

Available

online:

● IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2001. Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of working I to the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York. ● IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. In: Parry, M.L., et al. (Eds.), Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Parry, M.L., Canziani, O.F., Palutikof, J.P., Linden van der, P.J., Hanson, C.E. eds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. ● IOM (International Organization for Migration). 2008. „International Dilogue on Migration. Expert Seminar: Migration and the Environment.“ International Organization for Migration no. 10, Geneva. ● IOM (International Organization for Migration). 2012. „International Dilogue on Migration: Climate Change, Environmental Degradation and Migration.“ International Organization for Migration no. 18, Geneva. ● Jenkins, Craig J., Scanlan, Stephen J. 2001. „Food Security in Less Developed Countries, 1970 to 1990.“ American Sociological Review, 66(5): 718-744. ● Jordan, Andrew. 2005. “Environmental policy in the European Union: Actors, Institutions & Procesess.” London, Earthscan. ● Kaplan, Robert D. 1994. “The coming anarchy.” The Atlantic Monthly, 273: 44-76. ● Kreamer, David K. 2012. “The Past, Present, and Future of Water Conflict and International Security.” Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education, 149: 88 – 96. 87

● Levy, Marc, A. 1995. “Is the Environment a National Security Issue?” International Security 20(2): 35 – 62. ● Libiszewski, Stephan. 1992. “What is an Environmental Conflict?” Occasional Paper no. 1 of Environment and Conflicts Project. Swiss Peace Foundation and Center for Security Studies and Conflict Research. Bern and Zurich. ● Long, S. P., Ainsworth, E.A., Leakey, A.D.B., Nosberger, J., Ort, D.R. 2006. “Food for thought: lower-than-expected crop yield simulation with rising CO2 concentrations.”Science 312: 1918-1921. ● Lohrmann, Reinhard. 2000. “Migrants, Refugees and Insecurity. Current Threats to Peace?” International Migration, 38 (4): 3-22. ● Luwig, Ralf, Roson, Roberto, Zografos, Christos, Kallis, Giorgios. 2011. “ Towards an Inter-disciplinary research agenda on climate change, water and security in Southern Europe and neighboring countries.” Environmental Science & Policy, 14: 794-803. ● Martinovsky, Petr. 2011. “Environmental Security and Clasical Typology of Security Studies.” The Science for Population Protection, 2: 1 – 17. ● Mathews, Jessica T. 1989. “Redefining Security.” Foreign Affairs, 68(2): 162 – 177. ● Matthew, Richard, A. 1999. “Mapping Contested Grounds.” Pp. 1 – 25 In Contested grounds: Security and Conflict in the New Environmental Poltics. Edited by D. Deundly, R. A. Matthew. Albany: State University of New York Press. ● McDonald, Matt. 2013. “Discourses of Climate Security.” Political Geography, 33: 42-51. ● Meadows, Donella H., Meadows, Dennis, L., Randers, Jørgen, Behrens III, William W. 1972. “The Limits to Growth.” New York: American Library. ● Myers, Norman. 1989. “Environment and Security.” Foreign Policy, 74: 23 – 41. ● 1993. “Ultimate Security: the environmental Basis of political stability.” New York; W.W. Norton. ● NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration). Global Climate Change – Consensus. Available online at: http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus. ● Nye, Jr. Joseph S., Lynn-Jones, Sean M. 1988. “International Security Studies: A Report of a Conference on the State of the Field.” International Security, 12(4): 5-27. ● 2000. “Globalization: What‟s New? What‟s Not? (And So What?)”. Foreign Affairs, 118(Spring): 104-119. ● Obama, Barack. 2009. Full text of Obama speech at COP15 climate change conference in Copenhagen. Copenhagen, Denmark. Available online at: 88

http://climatechangemedia.ning.com/profiles/blogs/full-text-of-obama-speech-at. ● 2010. “State of the Union Address.” Available online http://photos.state.gov/libraries/ukraine/164171/pdf/state_union10.pdf.

at:

● Oldeman, L.R. 1998. “Soil degradation: A threat to Food Security?” Report 98/1, International Soil Reference and Information Centre,Wageningen. ● OECD (The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) Available online at: http://www.oecd.org/environment/. ● Pearse-Smith, Scott W.D. 2012. “‟Water war‟ in the Mekong Basin?” Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 53(2): 147 – 162. ● Pebley, Anne R. 1998. “Demography and the Environment.” Demography; 35(4): 377-389. ● Pirages, Dennis C. 1977. “Scarcity and International Politics: An Introduction.“ International Studies Quarterly, 21(4) (Special Issue on International Politicsof Scarcity): 563-567. ● 2007. “Nature, Disease and Globalization: an Evolutionary Perspective.” International Studies Review, 9(4): 616-628. ● Prins, Gwyn. 2004. “AIDS and Global Security.” International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-) 80( 5): 931 – 952. ● Rashid, Mamunur, Pereira, Joy Jacqueline, Begum, Rawshan Ara, Aziz, Sarah, Mokhtar, Mazlin Bin. 2010. “Climate Change and its Implications to National Security.” American Journal of Environmental Sciences, 7(2): 150-160. ● Rasmusen, Anders Fogh. 2009, Oct. “ National Security and the threat of Climate Change”; eleven retired three and four star officers. Lloyd, London. ● REPORT. 1995. The Environmental Change and Security Project, bi-annual Report. ● Repetto, Robert, Holmes, Thomas. 1983. “The Role of Population in Resource Depletion in Developing Countries.” Population and Development Review, 9(4): 609 – 632. ● Rosset, Peter, Collins, Joseph, Lappé, Francis Moore. 2000. “Lessons from the Green Revolution - Do We Need New Technology to End Hunger?” Tikkun Magazine, 15(2): 52-56. ● Rønnfeldt, Carsten. 1997. “Three Generations of Environment and Security Research.” Journal of Peace Studies 34 (4): 473 – 482. ● Sceptical Science; Global Warming & Climate Change Myths. Available online at: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php.

89

● Seckler, David, Barker, Randolph, Amarasinghe, Upali. 1999. “Water Scarcity in the Twenty-first Century.” Water Resources Development, 15(1/2): 29 – 42. ● SERDP & ESTCP (Department of Defense‟s Environmental Research Programs). Available online at: http://www.serdp.org/. ● Schär, Christoph, Vidale, Pier Luigi, Lüthi, Daniel, Frei, Christoph, Häberli, Christian, Liniger, Mark A., Appenzeller, Christof. 2004. “the Role of Increasing Temperature Variability in European Summer Heatwaves.”Nature, 427: 332-336. ● Schubert, Renate, Schellnhuber, Hans J., Buchmann, Nina, Epiney, Astrid, Griesßhammer, Rainer, Kulessa, Margareta E., Messner, Dirk, Rahmstorf, Stefan, Schmid, Jürgen. 2008. “Climate Change as a Security Risk.” London: Earhtscan. ● Shiva, Vandana. 1991. “The violence of the Green Revolution: Third World Agriculture, Ecology and Politics.” Zed Books, London. ● Scheffran, Jürgen, Battaglini, Antonella. 2011. „Climate and conflicts: the security risks of global warming.“ Reg Environ Change 11: S27-S39. ● Smith, Paul J. 2007. “ Climate Change, Mass Migration and the Military Response.”Orbis, 51 (4): 617-633. ● Social Care Institute for Excellence. 2010. “At A Glance 23: Sustainable Social Care: Climate Change.” Available online at: http://www.scie.org.uk/publications/ataglance/ataglance23.asp. ● Spillman, Kurt R. 1995. “Environmental Crisis: Regional Conflicts and Ways of Cooperation.” Report of the International Conference at Monte Verità, Ascona, Switzerland, 3-7 October 1994; Environment and Conflicts Project (ENCOP). ● Stern, Nicholas. 2006. “The Economics of Climate Change. The Stern Review” HM Treasury, London. Available online at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.hmtreasury.gov.uk/sternreview_index.htm. ● Stevenson, Richard W., Broder, John, M. 2013. “Speech Gives Climate Goals Center Stage.” New York Times, January 21. Available online at: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/22/us/politics/climate-change-prominent-in-obamasinaugural-address.html?_r=2&. ● Sternberg, Troy. 2012. “Chinese drought, bread and the Arab Spring.”Applied Geography, 34: 519-524. ● Sustainable Development Unit. 2013. “Adaptation to Climate Change for Health and Social Care Organizations “Co-ordinated, Resilient, Prepared” “. Available online at: http://www.sdu.nhs.uk/documents/publications/Adaptation_Guidance_Final.pdf. 90

● Swain, Ashok. 1996. “Displacing the Conflict: Environmental Destruction in Bangladesh and Ethnic Conflict in India.” Journal of Peace Research, 33 (2): 189-204. ● Tarry, Sarah. 1999. “Deepening‟ and „Widening‟: An Analysis of Security Definitions in the 1990s. Available online at: http://www.jmss.org/jmss/index.php/jmss/article/view/272/286. ● Theisen, Ole M. 2008. “Blood and Soil? Resource Scarcity and Internal Armed Conflict Revisited.“ Journal of Peace Research, 45(6): 801 – 818. ● The Center for Climate and Security. Available online at: http://climateandsecurity.org/. ● Thrupp, Lori A. 2000. “Linking Agricultural Biodiversity and Food Security: The Valuable Role of Sustainable Agriculture.” International Affairs, Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944- (Special Biodiversity Issue), 76(2): 265 – 281. ● Ullman, Richard. 1983. “Redefining Security.” International Security, 8(1): 129 – 153. ● UNCED (UN Commision on Environment and Development). 1987. Our Common Future. ● UN Panel Report. 2005. “Poverty, Infectious Disease, and Environmental Degradation as Threats to Collective Security.” Population and Development Review, 31(3): 595 – 600. ● Vogler, John. 1999. “The European Union as an Actor in International Environmental Politics.” Environmental Politics, 8(3): 24-48. ● Wais, Sarka. 2009. “Contemporary issues of international security.” Ales Cesnek, Plzen. ● Walt, Stephen. 1991. “The Renaissance of Security Studies.” International Studies Quarterly, 35(2): 211 – 239. ● Warner, Koko. 2010. “Global Environmental Change and Migration. Governance Challenges.” Global Environmental Change, 20: 402- 413. ● Weiner, Myron. 1992. “Security, Stability and International Migration.” International Security, 17 (3):91-126. ● Williams, Paul D. 2008. “Security Studies An Introduction.” London, New York: Routledge. ● UNEP (United Nations Environmental Programme). 1989. “The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.” Available online at: http://ozone.unep.org/new_site/en/montreal_protocol.php. ● UNDP (United Nations Development Program). 2006. ”Human Development Report 2006. Beyond Scarcity: Power, Poverty and Global Water Crisis.” Available online at: http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR06-complete.pdf.

91

● UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). 2001. “Kyoto protocol.” Available online at: http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php. ● UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees). 2007. “Internally Displaced People. Questions and Answers.” UNHCR website http://www.unhcr.org/405ef8c64.html. (viewd 13. april 2013). ● UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees). 2006. “The State of the World’s Refugees 2006: Human Displacement in the new Millennium.” Oxford, New York, Oxford University Press. ● WHO (World Health Organization). 2010. “UN Global Annual Assessment of Sanitation and Drinking water.” Available online at: http://water-tariff-forvulnerable.org/documents/Global/ENG_GLAAS%202010%20Report.pdf. ● National Research Council. Alternative agriculture. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Science. 1989. Available online: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=1208&page=R1.

92