Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Itay Fischhendler


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Itay Fischhendler

  1. 1. 07/11/2012 Securitizing the environment Who is securitizing the “We have to prevent further environmental degradation. If we fail these problems will cause environmental discourse, why terrorism, tension and war” (Clinton, 1994) and what are its potential “The Darfur conflict began as an ecological crisis, implications? arising at least in part from climate change.” (UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, 2007) “The next war in the Middle East will be fought over Itay Fischhendler water, not politics” (Egyptian Foreign Minister, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Boutrous Ghali) Linkage of environment and security What are we securitizing? weak society legitimacy Reliable supplies supply demand scarcityenvironment conflicts security abundancesecurity environmental conflicts security scarcityenvironmental collective security peace threat action and Energy security is “reliable and adequate supply at a reasonable price" building trust (Bielecki, 2002) What are we securitizing? What are we securitizing? Our existence Our valuesClimate security is a "stable climate or maintaining a rate of change below Food security is access by all people at all times to enough food forthe dangerous levels for human and ecological systems" (Stripple 2002) an active, healthy life (World Bank, 1986) 1
  2. 2. 07/11/2012 What resources we securitize ? Resources What are we What is under Security instruments The “holy” nexus securitized securitizing? threat? Water Rights and values -Food production -Desalinization, pollution - Hydro energy prevention, efficiency supply uses, virtual water, Thinking about the energy-water-food nexus lifts -Human hygiene and health sustainability from a CSR issue to the Food Entitlements and -Food production -Self-sufficiency strategic…level values -Employment, -New food markets (International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2012) welfare state -Group invitations Energy - Standard and Reliable energy -Energy diversification quality of life supply -Grid supply - Political stability -Renewable energy The Energy-Water-Food Nexus: The Emerging Environment/ - Life support -Open spaces Challenge to Sustainable Prosperity Ecology systems - Biodiversity (Forbes, 2012) - Earth integrity Climate -Life support systems - All of the above -Energy efficiency -Political stability, -Reviewable energy standard and quality -Demand management of life -Technology transfer How do we securitize? TECHNICAL POLITICIZED SECURITIZED The discourse: political VS technicalComponent Component MechanismsAttributeLinguistic Discourse Technical Political Political Speech ActsLinguistic Issue Framing Problems & Risks Existential Metaphors, Political/secirtized: Risks Threats Narratives, Frames Rice: Is there a shortage of water?Linguistic Water Primary Primary / Primary / Non-water linkage, Abu Ala: There is a disaster! There is great shortage of Centrality Secondary Secondary water treaty embedded in a larger water in Palestine and Israel (Annapolis-Meeting, 2008) treatyLinguistic / Rule- Compliant Compliant Rule- Advocating secrecyInstitutional Observance defiance or force Saeb Erekat: It is like the man who is 220 cm tall and theInstitutional Transparency Med-High Med-High Low Excluding civil Actors door is 190 cm. I could ask him to bend or I can also and regimes suggest that we cut his neck. (Annapolis-Meeting, 2008)Institutional Efficiency Med-High Low-Med Low Rejecting Consideration Cost/BenefitInstitutional Equity Low-Med Low-Med Med-High Equitable and Consideration resalable Water centrality: Efficiency vs. other considerations primary or secondary resource Efficiency consideration :Primary: D1 in the interest of the harmonious development and prosperity of“emergency situations resulting from suddenly either from natural agriculture, food industry, forestry, and water economy of thecauses or from human conduct and causing an imminent threat to contracting parties (Czech Republic & Slovak Republic 1992)the Zambezi Watercourse” (Agreement on the Establishment of theZambezi Watercourse Commission, 2008) Other considerations: Secondary: “The dam entails strategic, social and cultural costs that "Providing Gaza with water and power is not difficult. They need go far beyond its substantial monetary price” (Fearnside, to stop the rockets" (Kugler, 2008) 1988). the motivation for the agreement is “… considering their desire to “with a view to increasing the prospects for peace, restore security and mutual trust throughout the length of their security, and prosperity in the region” (Red- Dead Sea common frontier” (1979 water treaty between Iran, Iraq) Water Conveyance Project, 2005). 2
  3. 3. Slide 11D1 This quote is incomplete - does not make sense - after the word "from" or "suddenly" should be another noun Daniel, 19/10/2012
  4. 4. 07/11/2012 Why are we securitizing? Securitization implies: Rhetorical device aimed at recruiting greater support Placing issues ‘beyond normal politics Making decisions on the basis of impulse, The search for new missions that are oftenmilitarily-driven Removing an issue from both the political and A genuine fear of political instability, conflict and war economic field, where calculation of gains and losses are no longer dominant. The pros of securitization The cons of securitization It draws attention away from more proximate environmental causes and problems. It puts the environment on the agenda It perpetuate inequalities between those who did manage to put their problems on the agenda and those who could not. Some indications that it mobilizes power and policy makers It negates prioritization because all issues can become securitized Environmental security skeptics Directions for research Securitizing the environment is a rhetorical device aimed at What resources are we securitizing?drumming up greater support for measures to protect theenvironment (e.g Levy, 1995) Who is securing the environmental discourse? ‘Rhetorical attention-getting (Deudney, 1990). How do we securitize the resource and discourse? Calling for the de-securitization of natural resources discourse What variables encourage a securitized discourse?Subscribing mechanisms for de-securitization: What are the implications of a securitized discourse? o data sharing, virtual water , JWC How can we reconcile between competing securities? 3
  5. 5. 07/11/2012 First Test case: the U.N. Commission for Sustainable Methodology & Data Development Content analysis of statements (CSD 12 -15) : Goal: Identify if the statements are securitized Reviewing the implementation of Agenda-21 Identify what is being securitized Policy guidance for future Sustainable Development Identify the solutions suggested Promote dialogue and build partnerships Statistical analysis Multivariate regression Process: Annual open forum Each year is devoted to several specific topics Our database State vs. human security CSD12 & CSD13 Water CSD14 & CSD15 Energy (water) Number of % of Number of % of 100% Observations Total Observations Total 23% 90% 30% 34%Statements 366 100.0 696 100.0 80%Statements submitted by states 233 63.7 430 61.8 13% 70% unclear 22% 60%Statements submitted by non- 133 36.3 266 38.2 28%state actors state 50%Statements referencing security 70 19.1 130 18.5 human 40% 65% 30%Statements by states 41 11.2 74 10.6 48%referencing security 38% 20%Statements by non-state actors 10% 29 7.9 56 8.0referencing security 0% Overall Non- States states What are they securitizing ? State vs. human security (water) (energy)? 100% 90% 80% 59% 61% 58% 70% unclear 60% state 50% human 40% 23% 30% 31% 37% 20% 16% 10% 10% 5% 0% Overall Non- States states 4
  6. 6. 07/11/2012 What are they Securitizing in Energy? Examples for securitized statements • Addressing political unrest caused by sharp increases in oil prices (Sweden). • Stability in respective regions… are among key factors impacting energy security (Azerbaijan) • The Energy Strategy of Armenia is to enhance [its] energy independence Water VariablesWhat encourages Securitization? Variable Type Variable name Variable Description Units of measurement Composit WPI Aggregate water poverty index developed by Sullivan 0-100 e (2002) and Lawrence, Meigh and Sullivan (2002) Resource ARWR Annual renewable water resources per capita m3/cap/year Endowme nt and IRWR Internal renewable water resources per capita m3/cap/year Use Variables Withdrawals Water withdrawn as share of total IRWR % Waterdependence Share of IRWR originating in other countries % Socio- Agrpop Population in the agricultural sector % economic and Agrgdp Agricultural value added as share of overall Gross % Political Domestic Product Variables GDPcap Gross Domestic Product per capita 2000 US$ Popgrowth Annual population growth % Politicalstability World Governance Indicators (WGI) index of political 0-100 stability and absence of violence published by the World Bank (2010). Values represent 2003 data. Second test case:Multi-variate logistic Multi-variate logistic regressionregression for water variables for energy variables What intensifies competitionIndependent Coefficient Independent CoefficientVariable Variable between securitized discourses:ARWR -3.34E-06 Energyusecap -0.0003IRWR 1.65E-06 Fossilreservescap 62.151 The case of solar farms in IsraelWithdrawals 0.005* Fossilusepercent -0.0174Waterdependence 0.029*** Energyimports 0.001Agrpop 10.693*** Fuelexports -0.01Agrgdp -0.055 Fuelimports 0.0317 CO2cap 0.151GDPcap 0.0001*** GDPcap 0.00007Popgrowth 0.100 Popgrowth -0.726**Politicalstability 0.175 Politicalstability -0.056 Island 0.826Constant -3.471 Constant 0.39Pseudo R2 0.29 Pseudo R2 0.121 5
  7. 7. 07/11/2012 Triggering variables A rush towards solar farms in the Negev Growing Diminishing Demand Supply 2011: a new master plan to speed up small/medium farms Resource multiple uses Enabling variables scarcity of resource conflict 70 local solar farms initiatives submitted for Disaster approval (430mgs on 10,000 donams) Ten large farms initiatives (1000 mgw; 25,000 Competition over agenda setting politicized donam) decisionadaptive makingcapacityscarcity Competing security discourses What encourages competing security discoursesThe Israeli case: competition over land Triggering variables land geo-strategic regulation gas-discovery Institutional scarcity events events events setting energy security discourseScarcity of land and water Multiple uses for land in the Negev appropriated and scarce land• Army (55%) Food security Ecological security Traditional (military) security discourse Climate security discourse discourse discourse• Ecological needs (30%, coincidence with army)• Food requirements (8%) competing security discourses Examples for securitized statements there is a need to allocate more training areas to the army beyond the 48% to accommodate the security threats(Zohar, 84 protocols spanning 10 years whereby solar 2004) energy was discussed energy is the life drug of Israel Half the protocols had at least one statement (Minister of Infrastructure, 2004) containing securitized discourse there is a threat to our plant due to green 182 securitized statements gas emissions (Minister of Infrastructure, 2004) 35 6
  8. 8. 07/11/2012 Climate Energy Ecology 6% 1% Affordability Economy Independency 19% 21% Biodiversity 47% Humanity Public health 11% Life support 79% Life 94% 22% Reliability system Unclear Unclear Unclear Food Traditional Confidentiality 15% 12% 27% Flight safety 3% Affordability 17% Military traning Reliability 73% 53% Unclear Operational capability Unclear Issues %. of securitized Forum securitized statements Parliamentarian Council National Planning committees Regional Planning Committee Technical Forum 1 0.9 Parliamentarian 0.8 Competition Index 2 0.7 National Planning 0.6Climate 8.8% 37.5% 87.5% 6.3% 6.3% 0.0% Council 0.5Energy 40.1% 64.4% 58.9% 35.6% 4.1% 1.4% Regional Planning 0.4 committees 0.3Ecology 7.7% 14.3% 7.1% 71.4% 14.3% 7.1% Technical 0.2Food 6.0% 9.1% 27.3% 54.5% 18.2% 0.0% Committee 0.1Traditional 37.4% 57.4% 5.9% 60.3% 20.6% 13.2% 0Average 52.2% 35.7% 46.2% 12.1% 6.0% Date Third test case: Distribution of Israeli-Palestinian Annapolis Negotiations Observations Partially- Securitized Risks: 8% Data Set n=3 Israel-PLO Interim Water Agreement Fully- Securitized Negotiation protocols of 48 Annapolis meetings of Risks: 29% high level and technical officials in 2007-2009 that n=11 Problems: discuss water 63% n=24 Source: leaked “Palestine Papers” to Al Jazeera Gives insight into actual negotiations, rather than just end product (e.g., treaty analysis) Total Observations: 38 Identify events that represents standing issues to negotiate 7
  9. 9. 07/11/2012 Securitization Fulfillment Ratio 8 (in fully and partial securitization) Distribution of Risk Claims by Referent Object 7Condition Fulfillment Not Fulfilled 6Referent Object 100% 5“Proper” Speech Act 5% 95% 4 3Point of No Return 45% 55% Israeli 2 PalestinianWay Out 95% 5% 1 0Audience Acceptance 70% 30% Economic Socio-Political Environment Human Safety 0.45The division of water centrality by Forum Type 100% 0.4 Type of Securitization by Forum 90% 0.35 State 80% 0.3 70% Human 60% 0.25 n=14 50% 0.2 40% 0.15 30% 0.1 20% Political Committee 10% 0.05 Non-Political 0% 0 Primary Secondary Political Non-Political The potential effect of securitization Hinders cooperation: "When we reach an understanding about borders and the land, then it will become easier for us to talk about water” (Annapolis negotiations, 2008)Encourages cooperation:“the motivation for the water agreement is … considering Their desire to restore security and mutual trust throughout the length of their common frontier” (1979 water treaty between Iran, Iraq) 8