Environmental Security

In our globalized and modern community, environmental security problem has become a rising issue. However, as we have not developed the environmental security field as much as we have done for other political security issues, multiples of possible theories exist today as Floyd addresses in the reading. While reading the assignments for this week, I could easily find such distinctive perspectives in the analysis of two authors, Deligiannis and de Soysa, about natural resource scarcity and the possible factors of the phenomenon.

I found it interesting that Deligiannis argues polemical and social factors along with the human made scarcity result in the violent conflicts. He does not limit the causes to polemical aspects, but rather believes in the relation between natural scarcity and the violent conflict. It also let us to have a different approach to the cause of the natural scarcity problem. According to Deligiannis, I understand that the presence of violence is not explicable only with polemical reasons but rather human induced transformation is needed. Throughout the analysis, his claim seems to be well explained with the argument against those who insist on polemical factors, including de Soysa’s. But Deligiannis’ analysis would have been more convincing if it contains more cases that are applicable.

In the following chapter, on contrary to Deligiannis’ study, De Soysa considers that the major sources that influence natural scarcity are political and economical aspects. He explains that the resource scarcity problem can be resolved and that it is not by nature. I agree that natural resource being nurture enables government and international institutions to resolve the scarcity problem. Also, unlike Deligiannis, De soysa includes examples in his reading such as the cases of China and India, and this helped me understanding the concept clearly.

Still, I find it difficult to say which author’s position I would like to choose since I need more profound knowledge and research about this complicated debate. These two authors’ positions seem to be extremely contrary and both arguments are very interesting. However, to me, de Soysa’s concept is more convincing than that of Deligiannis as I strongly agree that the economic and political factors influence crucially in natural resource scarcity issue and that the policies made by government and international institutions improve the resource curse.

How we talk about and study environmental security is largely based on how we define it and what we believe is to be the major conflict and consequence. An interesting argument came up on whether environmental threats should be acknowledged as life threatening natural disasters instead of a national security. I agree with Floyd’s response that this could potentially lead to a shift in political significance of environmental threats.  The reading for this week set the stage for the types of topics we will be further exploring in the chapters ahead. Floyd’s and Matthews introduced the history of the implications that environmental change has on the state of a nation and its people as well as the threats it poses to the future. I was introduced to several disciplines that I never thought existed, such as a political ecologist.

Chapter one spoke about environmental security using a more scholarly approach. Floyd introduced important questions that all seemed to challenge each other. For example, a question was posed in chapter 1 on if resource scarcity would lead to a violent environmental conflict and if scholars should study security based on its connection to violence or human. I found this to be the most interesting part of this week’s reading and I am curious to see what people have to see on this subject. I should mention that I strongly believe that the biggest threat to a nation is the violence that will occur because of climate change associated resource disparity. I think that the views of a human security scholar are fairly limited and needs to work alongside the ideas presented with the political ecologist (of course, that is easier said than done). However, the debates and questions that scholars face seem to be unanswerable and could lead to several tangents. I agree that a helpful way to ease these debates would be for the scholar to state what the research lacks and what its sole purpose is. Chapter two went on to focus on research projects and their definition of an independent variable. Although I did not enjoy this chapter as much as the first, I found that the figures helped me to gain a better understanding of the text.

If I were to write a research paper on the themes and topics discussed in this week’s reading, I would focus on the role that food (a resource that will become scarce and is scarce in many places already) has on the security of a nation and its people. My argument would be that food scarcity is linked to environmental change poses a direct threat to the welfare and the security of humans.

Prior to reading Environmental Security: Approaches and Issues, I have neither learned nor paid attention on the environmental security studies. Thus, most of the information on this book was fairly new to me. However, through these somewhat challenging and complicated texts encompassing distinct theories and schools of thought on environmental security, I was able to acquire various authors’ compelling opinions and approaches to complex issues of environmental security and diverse variables that trigger underdevelopment and human insecurity. At the same time these readings challenged my preconceived understanding of these issues while helping me to gain more comprehensive perception of environmental security.

I learned that the environmental security studies are such vast subject embracing many diverse, controversial issues and conflicting theories. Since, however, these subjects are fairly new areas of study I believe that more research and datas are highly needed and should be collected to develop and promote.

It was interesting to observe conflicting theories on the same issues, such as underdevelopment and violent disputes. According to De Soysa, natural resource scarcity is irrelevant for explaining violent conflicts and prevents to overcome poverty-related vulnerabilities based on the examples of the resource curse/resource abundance theory and wrong governance. He believes that since conflict and development are largely consequences of policy, better policy environment can make difference. Likewise, Benjaminsen, who wrote Is Climate Change Causing Conflict in the Sahel?(the article Professor gave us in the first class), argues that root causes of disputes are embedded in historical and political factors. In contrary, Homer Dixon with Bern-Zurich Group assert that resource scarcity would cause violent conflict and further lead to ecological marginalization and environmental discrimination. Personally, I don’t want to side with either of them because I believe that all of their arguments are convincing. However, if I have a chance to write a research paper on this subject matters, I would like to investigate and research about  weaknesses and contradictory points of these scholars.

Whilst reading this week’s material, I was struck by the lack of continuity between the various scholars. Although this is clearly not meant to be a textbook written by one or two authors, I struggled to find the common ground on which Environmental Security Studies (ESS) can be based upon. Due to the interdisciplinary nature of ESS as an academic discipline, there seemed to be a lack of consensus surrounding what the study of ESS should prioritise and what it is supposed to entail. However, this makes it an exciting field to explore and one that is constantly evolving in a rapid manner.

The lack of common unity was addressed by Rita Floyd in chapter 1. The creation of a framework that identifies and organizes the elements of ESS as an academic discipline so that they can be sorted into different areas of focus is necessary for scholars to comprehend the four central debates surrounding ESS. I believe that the interdisciplinary nature of the subject was emphasized in order to point out that the field is not static and, like in international relations and other academic subjects, there are many schools of thought that make up ESS although they may not have yet been defined.

It is in the following chapters that we see how the study of security and the environment can be approached in different ways, depending on the perspective that a researcher analyses the material. Deligiannis argues that the qualitative research within the field often clear links that explain why independent variables such as societal issues and the dependent variable of climate change are linked. According to Deligiannis, scholars fail to provide accurate models to study complex issues such as environmental security, which is something that I do agree with – in many ways, researchers often analyze environmental security issues in a bivariate manner, which contradicts the interdisciplinary nature of the field but also the ignores the multiple causes of the problems found within environmental security. On the other hand, De Soysa employs the usage of quantitative data to explain how underdevelopment and human insecurity are linked. De Soysa provides a convincing argument to show how the resource curse has led to environmental security issues, such as scarcity. The links from the hypothesis to the conclusion are clear although they are somewhat idealistic and overly simplified.

I would be interested in exploring the differences between critical epistemology and positive causal studies. In order to guarantee a more secure environment, I think that it is necessary to find the cause behind environmental degradation, thus the theory must be applied to practice.

With the primary debates of this week’s readings surrounding correlations between violent conflict and resource scarcity vs. violent conflict and resource abundance, I thought it was interesting how the introduction opened with an analysis of past acknowledgements of environmental security (e.g. Plato and Thucydides emphasizing self-sufficient societies) – all seeming to take sides with the resource scarcity and conflict theorists. Of course, this is analyzing the works of these authors through an unintended lens; nevertheless, I believe it indicates a natural tendency to align and see some logic with the resource scarcity argument.

The Deligiannis chapter did not delve into this argument in the manner I originally expected: the chapter seemed to argue that the theory was worth further research, but did not itself contribute further research or compelling evidence toward the thesis. In the end, I was in agreement with Deligiannis, but in many ways thought he contradicted himself by overanalyzing polemical debates on past research. On the other hand, Chapter 2 was valuable for finding the common points of even the criticizers for further study. In my opinion, this is an overall wise suggestion, but could also be dangerous if researchers are not open to incorporating criticism into their work. In addition, this may lead researchers to find only the evidence they seek since all common points mentioned in the chapter lean toward the validating the scarcity thesis.

I thought the flawed research methods of Chapter 2 were only accentuated by Soysa’s argument against case-based research and for trend-based research in Chapter 3. Overall, Soysa’s argument seemed to have the better organization and clarity to his statements and supporting graphs and figures. I did think he was a bit too confident and overstepping in his policy prescriptions. After reading both sides of the debate about resource scarcity and abundance, I believe both theories could be true simultaneously – they are not completely competing views in the light the authors of the two chapters present them (especially with Deligiannis’ anti-Neo-Malthusian argument and Soysa’s focus on government). Despite both authors directly criticizing the other’s point of view, they both address different situations.

If I were to further study the debates surfaced in this week’s readings, I would be interested in investigating if there are any correlations between the different causes of scarcity and different forms of violent outcomes. From the readings, it appears that much more research needs to be done on simpler topics before delving into more complex connections. Nevertheless, Deligiannis intriguingly alluded to this type of potential research. More simply, I would ideally be interested to further specify the relationship between human-induced scarcity and violent conflict with a more controlled “bridge” of social effects between the two than the loose connection presently “agreed” upon.

While reading this week’s reading assignments, I began to truly understand what we spoke about on the first day: that no one considers environmental security the same way. Once I understood this aspect, I then asked myself: if no one really considers environmental security in the exact same way, isn’t that the reason–or at least a component of the reason–why not much effective climate change policy has been enacted? I kept this question in the back of my mind while going over the readings.

Since the idea of environmental security is a relatively new area of scholarship, there is guaranteed contention. Such contention especially is rooted on what politicians, scientists, and everyday citizens should consider a security threat. As Rita Floyd mentioned, securitization needs to be perceived as “existentially threatening” by a “suitably powerful securitizing actor”–such as presidents, prime ministers, etc.–in order to be accepted by the public. Ultimately, it is the public’s opinion that truly makes a difference. From the readings, while I did come to understand that not everyone considers climate change in the same way, depending on where they live, their occupation, or health (etc.), I did also see that this is the excuse we have been using for decades. The argument over what exactly is considered an environmental security threat is, in my opinion, is holding us back from taking substantial steps toward mitigating our current situation and achieving better climate policy in the future.

That being said, I do not altogether agree with Mr. Benjaminsen’s article “Is Climate Change Causing Conflict in the Sahel?”. While he does make an important point that scarce resources are not the only reason for conflict in the world, I don’t agree that those who do believe such a fact are ignoring other root causes of global conflict. It is my opinion that yes, historically, root causes of conflict were rooted in politics, however the world is changing and that climate change–which is a contributor to resource scarcity–has become a new root cause of conflict. While not explicitly mentioned in the readings for this week, there are case studies of conflict arising as a result of climate change, be it from sea level rise, food scarcity, migration, or countless others, that outnumber Benjaminsen’s argument that most conflicts result from political and historical dispute. I am not saying that his argument is not well-founded and that there are no conflicts that do not directly result from climate change, however it is my belief that the effects of climate change are related to almost every global conflict today. Climate change may not be a root cause is every conflict, however it still plays a significant role, which will only increase in the future without proper policy in place.

Overall, I believe that climate change should be considered a non-traditional security threat and should be included in the umbrella term “security threat”. As Floyd mentioned, the nature of human security can (I think it should) be about both “freedom from fear and freedom from want”. As we move into a more climatically threatened future, this will only become more relevant, as fear and want increase as our resources decrease.

In addition to providing general theoretical context, this week’s readings see two schools of thought in the field of environmental conflict studies argue against each other. De Soysa asserts that wealth of resources and violent or greed-driven conflict are linked in certain countries; that some are indeed “cursed.” She posits that this tragic and cyclical correlation can be resolved by growth of ingenuity, capital, and good governance in poor countries. Deligiannis, on the other hand, is vehement in his criticism of De Soysa and the “curse hypothesis”, arguing that she sets up a misleading dichotomy between concepts of resource scarcity and abundance. He contends that violence resulting from abundance is still a result of scarcity, as the unequal geographic distribution of resources, even in countries that are as a whole “resource-rich” is the cause of such violence. In short, relative scarcity drives the violence, so the different research behind studies of conflict in countries of scarcity and wealth are not so opposed as De Soysa makes them out to seem. These two arguments are both well-reasoned and backed with evidence, especially De Soysa’s.

That being said, I did not find myself convinced by either author.  If Deligiannis really wanted other researchers to present violence related to resource availability more realistically, he should have set the tempo and provided some practical solutions. Instead his piece, though argued thoroughly, represents another example of one researcher laying out the flaws of another without any constructive ideas; his substance is largely vague criticism of hypotheses, and he ultimately fails to convey realistic applications of his research to resolve the resource distribution problem (which is the most critical point he outlines.)

De Soysa also does not sway me, but in a different way. Unlike Deligiannis, she provides concrete solutions for her argument that security problems and underdevelopment are intertwined (a thesis that I happen to agree with, not only due to De Soysa’s impressive historical examples and extensive charts/graphs/etc., but also because of previous readings in government and environmental studies courses). However, her proposals ring a little too neo-colonialist-Kumbaya for my tastes. As much as I’d like to believe the combination of aid from richer countries, global governance organizations, and private sector CSR can solve poverty in Sub Saharan Africa and beyond, history has taught me not to be that optimistic. (And I have become far too cynical to give much credit to any scholarly work in this field that includes the subheading “Reasons for Hope”)

What interests me most in this weeks’ reading is the brief mention by Deligiannis of Benedikt Korf’s efforts into studies of greed, grievance, and war that transcends the dichotomy of abundance and scarcity. In his article “Greed and Grievance in Sri Lanka” that was published in the Journal of Peace Research, he uses the example of violence in Sri Lanka to demonstrate how complex systems of ethnic capital and bias influence political, economic, and resource gains during times of warfare. He also suggests that humanitarian aid may not be the best way to solve resource disparities that result from such violence, which is a concept that interests me, as a skeptic of many schools of humanitarianism.