Chapter 16 Self-test questions

. In what ways, if any, can the environment be considered a security concern?

The environment is at risk from human activity.

The nation state is at risk from environmental change.

Environmental change might be a contributor to war.

All of the above.

. Which of the following events can be regarded as contributing to the emergence of environmental security during the 1960s and 1970s?

From the 1970s a number of scholars attempted to critique orthodox security discourse and practices, highlighting their inability to manage environmental risks to national and international security.

There became a growing recognition that environmental changes do not merely pose risks to ecosystems-they also pose risks to human well-being.

The development of environmentalism in developed countries after the 1960s.

All of the above.

. In what ways did strategic circumstances have an effect on environmental security perspectives?

The end of the Cold War created the space for security policy and security studies to be re-considered in light of growing environmental consciousness underlined by multilateralism in policy action.

In 1973 the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) restricted oil supplies which underlined the industrial capacity of the military leaving a profound psychological impact requiring that security be linked to national interests: the securing of energy deals and the environment became related to military capability diplomacy.

Ideologically driven military security was replaced by a need to preserve territorial integrity in wake of the collapse of communism. Military security was a high priority given the threat of spill-over. The environment remained a peripheral concern to the security institutions occupied with the new security environment post-Cold War.

The end of the Cold War order created the intellectual space for the broadening of security issues beyond Cold War military mentalities. Research among political and environmental scientists discussed ways in which new security issues could be addressed. The plethora of publications produced, however, had little effect on policy.

. What was not a common finding of the Toronto Project and the Environment and Conflict Project (ENCOP)?

It is the abundance of natural resources as much as their scarcity that drives armed conflict.

Unequal consumption of scarce resources contributes to violent conflicts.

When mechanisms that enable adaptation to environmental scarcity fail, violent conflict is a more likely outcome.

Violent conflicts where environmental scarcity is a factor are more likely in low-income resource-dependent societies.

. In what ways has conflict been a concern of the environmental security agenda for strong states?

Environmental change can be a cause of war between countries, largely centred on resource scarcity interrelated with conflict. There is therefore a strong connection between environmental degradation and violence; resources as strategic goals and strategic tools may cause violence if there is inequity.

Population growth and its relationship to environmental degradation can lead to environmentally caused conflict. There is therefore a linear link between population growth and environmental change, and environmental change is the critical determinant in the production of violence.

Common findings in research organizations investigating environmental violence have failed to find quantifiable relationships between environmental and social variables and the cause of war. Analysis of aggregated data failed to establish a common causal mechanism. The extensity of possible variables being simply too vast, mitigating any definitive relationship.

Analysis of environmental violence research shows that there is a tendency among 'strong states' to be less prone to internal violent conflicts whereas states undergoing significant economic and political transitions are more prone to violent conflict. Environmental change is unlikely to be a cause of war but can be a contributory factor.

. How can environmental changes undermine national security?

Environmental change can be a risk to the territorial integrity of states.
inorrect

Environmental change can undermine the human development considered important for economic growth.

Environmental change can weaken the economic base that determines military capacity.

All of the above.

. Can armed forces be linked to environmental security and in what ways?

Military warfare enhances the ability of people's access to resources and to aid the development in ecologically sustainable ways: it can secure access routes and rights that would otherwise be denied; rebuild infrastructure and equitable access of resources; benefit the management of environmental problems; and also to bolster social institutions and cohesion.

It is when considering the military and the security institutions that some of the greatest contradictions with the concept of environmental security are raised. War impacts negatively on the sustainable growth of the nation but armed forces may be required to manage the effects.

Stronger militaries and technological advances have reduced the negative impact on the environment having greater impact with fewer materials, whilst the spectre of mass destruction warfare has been reduced with the ending of the Cold War.

All of the above.

. In what ways can the environment be linked to human insecurity?

Human insecurity is an interchangeable concept with environmental insecurity; environmental change invariably undermines human security because its impact is always 'human' and acts as a constraining or facilitating factor that determines the extent of human development. Environmental change and conditions will therefore be the primary determinant of a person's or community's capacity to adapt to their surroundings.

The ways in which environmental change can threaten the welfare of the international system is dependent on the extensity of poverty as the key variable determining a population's reactive capability. Environmental change would have a negative impact if resources were available to adapt to environmental change to sustain their existing income levels.

In terms of the social determinants of insecurity, environmental change does not undermine human security in isolation; larger scale processes affect people's sensitivity to environmental changes and their capacity to adapt, whilst past processes shape present insecurities and ongoing processes shape future insecurities.

The concept of environmental human security is an essentially contested concept lacking empirical credibility of the ways in which specific environmental changes affect individuals or communities in particular times/ places and how this alters over a period of time. The lack of an agreed definition on what constitutes human security makes the possibility of developing a framework unlikely.

. To what extent and to what effect has the environment been securitized?

The securitization of environmental security concerns has raised the profile of environmental security issues among both foreign and domestic security policy-makers and agencies. It is now uniformly recognized that environmental change can be considered as an issue of high security politics.

Environmental security has led to a 'trading off' of military security for environmental security with the allocation of resources committed to solving environmental problems. A particular emphasis has been placed on environmental change as the cause of violent conflict and addressing environmental threats from other factors than domestic causes.

The environment has been 'securitized' in the sense that environmental security has been used to make them matters of 'high politics'. This has to some degree raised the profile of critical issues among policy-makers and agencies so that the environment can be considered an issue of security. But whilst the issue has been broadened there has been little change in policy and action in terms of the referent object of environmental security.

The national security perspective on environmental issues has undermined the utility of the concept of environmental security. The militarization of environmental problems has decreased the ability of policy-makers to 'capture' the critical nature of environmental problems and the environmental dimensions to social vulnerability. The reconciliation of environmental security with national security, and global levels of international change cannot be made without trading in the security interests of the state.

. What long-term trends can be foreseen in the concept of environmental security?

In the post-9/11 reversion to traditional security thinking, environmental security as a concept is likely to enjoy continued attention from security analysts and policy-makers.

Increasing evidence of the negative effects of environmental insecurity may increasingly govern national security interests and behaviour. The relevance will increase until national unilateralist initiatives are taken to retain the social organization of the nation which may have the adverse effect of increasing the prospect of conflict.

National security practices are the most effective means to achieving environmental security reforms to consolidate the socio-economic organizational base of the country against threat. The state on a practical level remains the most capable body-having the monopolization over the instruments of violence, and centralization of resources-to enter into trans-national agreements for the management of environmental constraints.

The impact of environmental problems seems unlikely to diminish so that the relevance of environmental security for policy will likely increase, particularly multilateral action on common security concerns to achieve forms of social organization that are ecologically sustainable. In some sense, current practices of national security are an impediment to achieving environmental security for all people.

Chapter 16 Self-test questions

Quiz Content