The Environmental Security Discourse: Why, How and its Implications
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

The Environmental Security Discourse: Why, How and its Implications

on

  • 1,877 views

Itay Fishhendler

Itay Fishhendler
Tuesday 12 July 2011

The Environmental Security Discourse: Why, How and its Implications

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,877
Views on SlideShare
1,369
Embed Views
508

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
25
Comments
0

3 Embeds 508

http://environmentalconflicts.com 316
http://www.environmentalconflicts.com 191
http://translate.googleusercontent.com 1

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • This can be an internal threat- civil war- or an external or can also be infectious disease for whom: the country : country From what : military threats, land issues
  • Human security complements state security, enhances human rights and strengthens human development. It seeks to protect people against a broad range of threats to individuals and communities and, further, to empower them to act on their own behalf. Freedom from Fear —protecting individuals from violent conflicts while recognizing that these violent threats are strongly associated with poverty, lack of state capacity and other forms of inequities. Freedom from Want — The school advocates a holistic approach in achieving human security and argues that the threat agenda should be broadened to include hunger, disease and natural disasters because they are inseparable concepts in addressing the root of human insecurity and they kill far more people than war, genocide and terrorism combined. [10] Different from "Freedom from Fear", it expands the focus beyond violence with emphasis on development and
  • It seems that the environmental language is now saturated by security jargon To be more blunt, it seems that the envi and security high jacked each other October 2003 a report to the Department of Defense (Schwartz and Randall, 2003- from occ -10) . The report recommends that the United States commit ‘‘to a stronger national and international role to help stabilize climate change at levels that will avoid significant disruption to global security and stability’’ (CNA Corporation 2007).
  • In form of crime and straggle between groups and rapid urbanization counter argument that Abundance can induce conflicts often because of the looting of the resources is used for buying arms - Reverse causal relationship: security infrastructure such as defense wall that affect the environment or just spending the tax payer money on security instead on the environment- unfortunately in Israel we have them both- can result in severe disagreements between groups Envi threat again can be scarcity such as a drought of abundance such as floods Often causes a common environmental threat that Requires collective action (building a dam., developing a peace park) Here it always asked the question of is it genuine cooperation and peace building or “dressing up dominance as cooperation”
  • Based on these premises and nexsus between the env and security mapes were prodiuced
  • What resources we often securitize and their nature There are dozens definitions of energy security, but most of them will stress the need for reliable supply.. The storyline is (that has started to develop) during the 1973 oil crisis often securitized the availability of extractive resources particularly oil at an affordable price.or in other words, securing the ability to gap between the incline in the demand to the harm in the supply ability. Otherwise we may face economic recession and some argue that it may lead to political unrest Solution : diversifying the resources portfolio, using less energy and advancing demand management
  • Because we can survive without our life supporting system's that are based on things such as the biodiversity and the integrality if our atmosphere. The ozone depilation ad its affect on our public health is often given as an example This existential implications of climate change is in addition to climate change other implications such as to the supply reliability of different resources and to stability of regimes,
  • First, it was defined (in the world food conference in 1974) as a world constant supply of basic food products often as a result of raise in the price food in many plaxes in the world. . A During the dacades latter (In the World Food Summit in 1996) its meaning was expanded and included securing the condition which all the people, any time and anywhere have physically and economically accessibility to safety food, nutritious and in sufficient amount to they're dietetic needs and that will provide the basis to healthy and active life (. In other words the shift has changed to the question of entitlement and the ability of the society to provide basic rights Water : the story line is similar of a shift from securing the expensation of the economy to nowadays to the concept of water as the human right that is nowadays promoted by _______ Solution:
  • Esesntial : especially energy where is scarcity was often described as a catalyst for political instability Symbols: as symbols for the US insecurity Embelmaic ” the army must be able to expend its training area otherwise it will not be able to meet the new security threats
  • The use of security jargon in decision making, politics and the media is not new. Security jargon was already documented to mobilize military decisions, budget and move aside other consideration such as environmental ones. For example, in the decision making process in Israel concerning expedition of a military base located in ecological sensitive areas, security jargon was heavily used. This include classifying the army activity their as 'top secret' and presenting the need for new military infrastructure as a condition for the navy ability to meet war conditions. Often by securitizing the envi discourse what is expected to move the decisions from low to high politics. What is assumed to be an instrument to recruit greater support and budget for the environment This is why often exogenous factors contribute to proliferation of security jargon and idioms used to step aside environmental considerations. For example in the US after, 11 2001 the use of military idioms and considerations in the congress and the White House seems to intensified.
  • That are often at a lower scale and profile. Because of this it may foreclose alternative actions Especially if the support for envi issues is gained at low politics as is often the case. In other words we are barking at the wrong tree In other words by brining the heavy artility it can perpetuate the status que and to not put us on the fast track for solution. One example that the literature stress is the climate change policy in the US that although was securitized during the bush administration, was not making and progress. All these cons implies that securitization is by far too blunt instruments to generate adequate policy responses Especially in the US energy security policy because the securitization is a social process, stronger actors with greater influence have better chance to convince the audience about the importance and the acute of they're securitize issue. Security is thus very much a structured field in which some actors are placed in better positions of power what may… . First it is an analytical slippery slope where vetting environmental threats under the logic of the war system we shall soon drain the term security of any meaning.
  • De-securitization in the water realm is assumed tends to foster institutional development and manifest as a win-win outcome, which is inherently more conducive for economic growth and hence positive peace (Turton, 2003). It is also assumed to allow parties to engage in benefit sharing (Turton, 2005) which is perceived as a way out of the zero-sum game trap associated with sharing the costs of water at the basin level ( Sadoff and Grey (2005).
  • ability to predict who is likely to securitize resources
  • Established: in 1992 by the ____following the United Nations Earth Summit different actors (governmental, semi-governmental, NGOs and regional). open forum: where all the actors have a place to express their ideas. At the forum each actor in his turn reads his official statement or statements. Each year: The topics are from a range of sustainable development issues For example: the 15th Commission dealt with Energy for Sustainable Development, Industrial Development, Air Pollution and Climate Change.
  • Statements: we focused on the years that were around water (__) and energy(___) since we suspected these resources to be securitized What : energy dependency, relatable supply, regime stability Multi : to identify the parameters that contribute to the securitization process
  • Parties: (100% is who declared) Statements: 65 of the statents were Security statements: :
  • Little of the securitization jargon relates to typical water scarcity issues In water we securtize:food and prosperity
  • Here we take only the statmentw with security
  • In energy we securitize- supply and food
  • Waterdependence Share of IRWR originating in other countries Agrpop Population in the agricultural sector In terms of identifying what components of water and energy variables affect the use of security jargon, for water it was a higher ratio of withdrawals to resources, a greater dependence on other countries for water supplies, and a higher proportion of population dependent on agriculture
  • such as regime stability and conflicts Energy : that is associated with securing economic growth . In wate r:is often associated with securing poverty alleviation
  • Land: this is the resource that is essential for the diffent securitizes Context variables : how much the system is democratic, public participation
  • There is a cabinet descion to shift to 10% renewable energy
  • לומר בעל פה analysis of parliamentary and planning and building committees
  • Pay attention that the nevironmtalist can be on both sides
  • Politicians raise energy security rhetoric- we can not trust our nirhberioes Business : raise energy security- they need subsidies NGOs raise environmental arguments: some are in favor because the positive affect on the clime while a few are against
  • Reconcile between food and energy security Reconclue between all securities (maybe at the expense of certain aspects of energy security which are relatable supply) Allow energy, climate and ___ securities not at the expense of food security (not at the expense of farms)

The Environmental Security Discourse: Why, How and its Implications The Environmental Security Discourse: Why, How and its Implications Presentation Transcript

  • The Environmental Security Discourse: Why, How and its Implications Itay Fischhendler Department of Geography, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
  • What is ‘traditional’ security?
    • A requirement to maintain the survival of the nation-state through the use of economic , military and political power and the exercise of diplomacy
    • Security for whom? Security from what?
    • expectation of years of life without experiencing the state of generalized poverty
    • a condition of existence" which entails basic material needs, human dignity, including meaningful participation in the life of the community, and an active and substantive notion of democracy
    • Freedom from Fear and Freedom from Want and beyond
    What is human security
  • Securitizing the environment “ We have to prevent further environmental degradation. If we fail these problems will cause terrorism, tension and war” (Clinton, 1994) “ The next war in the Middle East will be fought over water, not politics” (Egyptian Foreign Minister, and later UN Secretary General, Boutrous Ghali) “ The Darfur conflict began as an ecological crisis, arising at least in part from climate change.” (UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, 2007) “ climate change " would challenge US national security in ways that be considered immediately" ( Schwartz and Randall, 2003)
  • The causality between environment and security environment security conflicts scarcity supply demand abundance weak society legitimacy security security conflicts environmental scarcity Environmental threat collective action and trust security peace building
  •  
  •  
  •  
  • What are we securitizing: Reliable supply Energy security is “reliable and adequate supply at a reasonable price" (Bielecki, 2002) Energy security
  • What are we securitizing: our existence Ecological security Climate security Climate security is "stable climate or maintaining a rate of change below the dangerous levels for human and ecological systems" (Stripple 2002)
  • What are we securitizing: our values Water and food security Food security is access by all people at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life (World Bank, 1986)
  • What resources we securitize Resources securitized What are we securitizing What is under threaten Security instruments Water Rights and values
    • food production
    • hydro energy supply
    • human hygiene and health
    -desalinization; pollution prevention, efficiency uses, virtual water, Food Entitlements and values
    • -Food production
    • employment, welfare state
    Self sufficiency New food markets Croup invitations Energy - Standard and quality of life - Political stability Reliable energy supply -energy diversification grid supply renewable energy Environment/ecological - life support systems -Open spaces - biodiversity - earth integrity Climate
    • life support systems
    • Political stability
    • standard and quality of life
    - all of the above -energy efficiency Reviewable energy Demand management Technology transfer
  • How do we securitize?
    • Describe resource provision in existential ways
    • Associate the resource with conflicts
    • Use symbols to describe the resource dependency and volatility
    • Explain the resource need and use in emblematic terms
    • Make connections between the resource and high-politics issues
  • Examples of securitized statements
    • "“emergency situations “resulting from suddenly either from natural causes or from human conduct and causing or posing an imminent threat of causing serious harm to either the Zambezi Watercourse or to a Member State” ( Agreement on the Establishment of the Zambezi Watercourse Commission, 2008 ).
    • “ Several studies have shown that a temporary decline in rainfall has generally been associated throughout sub-Saharan Africa with a marked rise in the likelihood of violent conflict in the following months.” ( Scientific American , July 2006)
    • the motivation for the agreement is “… considering their desire to restore security and mutual trust throughout the length of their common frontier” (1979 water treaty between Iran, Iraq)
  • Why are we securitizing?
    • Rhetorical device aimed at recruiting greater support
    • The search for new missions for military institutions
    • A genuine fear for political instability, conflicts and wars
    • placing issues ‘beyond normal politics’, that is, ‘beyond public debate’
    • making decisions on the basis of impulse, urgency, and willingness to
    • sacrifice
    • remove an issue from both the political and economic field, where
    • calculation of gains and losses dominates.
  • The pros of securitization
    • It puts the environment on the agenda
    • Some indications that it mobilizes power and policy makers
    the underlying assumption is that they will succeed to influence only if they will establish a widespread connections between environmental issues and issues of poverty, housing health and security
  • The cons of securitization
    • undercuts the ability to conduct traditional missions that
    • counter explicitly military threats
    • It increases political frictions within the discourse, which
    • eventually will freeze it
    • securitization perpetuate the inequalities between those
    • who did manage to put their problems on the agenda
    • and those who not.
    • It draws attention away from more proximate environmental
    • causes and problems.
  • Environmental security skeptics
    • securitizing the environment is a rhetorical device aimed at
    • drumming up greater support for measures to protect the
    • Environment (e.g Levy, 1995)
    • ‘ Rhetorical attention-getting' (Deudney, 1990).
    • Many calls for the de-securitization of natural resources discourse
    Institutional development Benefit sharing
    • Subscribing mechanisms for de-securitization: data sharing, virtual water
  • directions for research
    • What resources are we securitizing?
    • Who is securing the environmental
    • discourse?
    • What variables contribute to the
    • process?
    • When and what securitized resources
    • are like to compete?
    • How can we reconcile between
    • competing securities?
    What are the implications of the use of security jargon?
  • Test case : the U.N. Commission for Sustainable Development
    • Its mission:
      • Reviewing the implementation of Agenda-21
      • Policy guidance for future Sustainable Development
      • Promote dialogue and build partnerships
    • Process:
      • Annual open forum
      • Each year is devoted to several specific topics
    • Content analysis of statements ( CSD 12 -15) :
      • Identify if the statements are securitized
      • Identify what is being securitized
      • Identify the solutions suggested
    • Qualitative assessment
    Methodology & Data
    • Statistical analysis
      • Multivariate regression
  • Our database CSD14 & CSD15 Energy CSD12 & CSD13 Water % of Total Number of Observations % of Total Number of Observations 100.0 159 100.0 150 Parties submitting statements 67.9 108 68.0 102 States submitting statements 32.1 51 32.0 48 Non-state actors submitting statements 100.0 696 100.0 366 Statements 61.8 430 63.7 233 Statements submitted by states 38.2 266 36.3 133 Statements submitted by non-state actors 18.5 130 19.1 70 Statements referencing security 10.6 74 11.2 41 Statements by states referencing security 8.0 56 7.9 29 Statements by non-state actors referencing security
  • CSD 12 &13 - WATER Mentioned Security Did Not Mention Security Did Not Submit a Statement
  • CSD 14 &15 - ENERGY Mentioned Security Did Not Mention Security Did Not Submit a Statement
    • Around the same securitized water and energy statements
    • Use of securitization jargon not correlated
    • with scarcity
    • Over-representation of Northern, wetter
    • states
    Who Is Securitizing Water?
  • Who Is Securitizing Water?
  • What are they securitizing?
  • Who Is Securitizing Energy?
  • How Much Are They Securitizing?
  • What Are They Securitizing in energy?
    • addressing political unrest caused by sharp increases in oil prices (Sweden).
    • stability in respective regions… are among key factors impacting energy security (Azerbaijan)
    • Indonesia support concrete measures at all levels to ensure energy security supply
    • The Energy Strategy of Armenia aim is enhancing the energy independence
    Examples for securitized statements
  • Insecurities expressed, idioms and language used, and recommended strategies Resource at Stake Insecurities Expressed Idioms and Language Used Recommended Strategies Climate Hunger, disease, flooding, migration, biodiversity loss Vulnerability, urgent, catastrophic forecasts, disasters, devastation, destruction, misery Mitigation and adaption finance, emergency disaster response development Energy Economic destabilization, poverty, lack of development Concerns, undermining, terrorism Trade liberalization, financial support, military assurances of open trade zones, development of renewable sources, technology transfer Food Development, health, hunger, poverty Urgent, utmost priorities, Technological support, financial support Land Poverty, rights, Property rights, institutional reform Water War, disease, economic hardship, poverty Looming crisis, grim prospects, Financial support for infrastructure, trade support,
  • Which States Are Securitizing? Logit Regression Secured = B 0 + B 1 X + ε Where: Secured = Binary variable (0,1) indicating if a state mentioned security at least once X = Vector of variables related to energy and water security B 0 + B 1 = parameters to be estimated ε = error term
  • Energy Variables Units of measurement Variable Description Variable name Variable Type Aggregate measure of energy security published by the World Energy Council (2009) WECSEC Composite kg of oil equivalent Fossil fuel energy use per capita Energyusecap Resource Endowment and Use Variables kg of oil equivalent Fossil fuel reserves per capita Fossilreservescap % Fossil fuel energy use as share of total energy use Fossilusepercent % Net energy imports as share of total energy use Energyimports % Fuel exports as share of total merchandise exports Fuelexports % Fuel exports as share of total merchandise imports Fuelimports metric tons of CO ­­ 2 equivalent Greenhouse gas (carbon) emissions per capita CO2cap 2000 US $ Gross Domestic Product per capita GDPcap Socio-economic Political and Geographic Variables % Average annual population growth Popgrowth World Governance Indicators (WGI) index of political stability and absence of violence published by the World Bank (2010). Values represent 2005 data Politicalstability 0/1 a binary variable indicating whether or not the country was an island Island
  • Water Variables Units of measurement Variable Description Variable name Variable Type 0-100 Aggregate water poverty index developed by Sullivan (2002) and Lawrence, Meigh and Sullivan (2002) WPI Composite m 3 /cap/year Annual renewable water resources per capita ARWR Resource Endowment and Use Variables m 3 /cap/year Internal renewable water resources per capita IRWR % Water withdrawn as share of total IRWR Withdrawals % Share of IRWR originating in other countries Waterdependence % Population in the agricultural sector Agrpop Socio-economic and Political Variables % Agricultural value added as share of overall Gross Domestic Product Agrgdp 2000 US$ Gross Domestic Product per capita GDPcap % Annual population growth Popgrowth 0-100 World Governance Indicators (WGI) index of political stability and absence of violence published by the World Bank (2010). Values represent 2003 data. Politicalstability
  • Multi-variate logistic regression for energy variables Multi-variate logistic regression for water variables   Coefficient Independent Variable Coefficient Independent Variable   -0.0003 Energyusecap   -3.34E-06 ARWR   62.151 Fossilreservescap   1.65E-06 IRWR   -0.0174 Fossilusepercent   0.005* Withdrawals   0.001 Energyimports   0.029*** Waterdependence   -0.01 Fuelexports   10.693*** Agrpop   0.0317 Fuelimports   -0.055 Agrgdp   0.151 CO2cap         0.00007 GDPcap   0.0001*** GDPcap   -0.726** Popgrowth   0.100 Popgrowth   -0.056 Politicalstability   0.175 Politicalstability   0.826 Island         0.39 Constant   -3.471 Constant   0.121 Pseudo R 2   0.29 Pseudo R 2
  • Conclusions
    • CSD is a venue where sustainability and security discourses meet
    • each other
    • Security jargon is often used as an instrument to raise the profile
    • of energy ad water issues It is often international organizations and
    • NGOs' that choose to do so
    • The issues securitized are not the traditional high political ones
    • In energy, it is securing reliable supply while in water it is securing
    • food availability
    • In water, it is countries that are more dependent on the resource
    • that will discuss it in security terms
  • How to reconcile between competing security discourses: The case of the solar power plants in the Israeli Negev
  • The main securities Means for achieving security Storyline Group of environmental security Security type Self-grown, preservation of land Accessibility to food Reliable supply Food local resources Availability and sustainability Reliable supply Energy CO2 reduction Climate that enables life Life support system Climate Nature reserves Ecology that enables agriculture Life support system Ecology Strong security agencies Protection of the nation Not environmental Traditional
  • Motivation for research
    • Securities compete over same resources.
    • Politicians and decision makers need to reconcile between conflicting securities.
    • What tools they have now available for it?
  • Land Food security Climate security Ecological security water/ R&D/ budget/labor Contextual variables Implication on policy and decision making process Traditional security Energy security Competition between resources Positive feedback negative feedback
  • Research questions
    • Under what conditions does the discourse of competing securities arise?
    • How does this discourse affect the decision-making process?
    • How can the competing discourses be reconciled?
    • Case study: Solar power plants promotion in the Israeli Negev
    • Analysis of the decision making process:
    General methodology
      • Classification of protocols
      • In-depth interviews
  • Methodology
    • Content analysis of protocols according to security statements:
      • Storyline
      • Strategies for reconciliation
      • Explicit or implicit securitization
      • Forum
      • Actor
      • Security raised
  • Explicit/Implicit securitization
    • Explicit
      • “ Energy is the essence of life of the country”
    • Implicit
      • “ We are required , together with all the nations, to contribute [to the struggle for global climate] “
  • Results
  • “ Coalition” of securities
    • Climate and energy securities gain from the solar energy and act as the pro coalition
    • Food, ecology and traditional securities act as the anti-coalition
    • The “coalitions” compete for land
    Land Climate, energy, Food Ecology Traditional “ Pro” solar power plant “ Anti” solar power plant
  • Examples for resource securitization
    • Israel can no longer remain dependent on energy import for its existence
    • The solar farms is a national project as important as tanks
    • Marinating the open spaces is our green lungs
  • The security types raised in each protocol Type of security   Envi . Trad . Food Econ . Clim . Ecol . Ener . Protocol no.               Par. Cmte.   V     V V   V 1   V     V V   V 2               V 3   V       V V V 4     V V V V V   5 N=65 V       V     6 0.31 No. of security types to the no. of statements ratio : Loc. Cmte.   V   V   V   V 1   V V V     V   2   V V V   V V   3 N=39   V     V V   4 0.41 No. of security types to the no. of statements ratio :   Nat. Cmte.     V V     V   1           V   V 2           V     3     V       V   4   V V     V   V 5           V     6           V     7   V   V   V V   8     V     V     9   V   V   V V   10     V           11       V V V V   12 N=47   V       V   13 0.61 No. of security types to the no. of statements ratio :  
  • Early solutions to reconcile the competition
    • Attach solar farms to existing infrastructure
    • Solar panels on top of existing infrastructure
    • To outsource solar farms to Jordan
    • Solar farms at the buffer zone around the Israeli nuclear facility
    • Solar panels on non- arable land
  • Discussion
    • The securitization discourse is used to mobilize the attention of policy makers.
    • As a result securities and actors compete over resources such as land but also water and R&D.
    • Using securities to frame the discourse creates alliance between actors
    • Decision making venues differ in how they use and abuse the security framework
    • This is a result of the different nature of venues