One of the objectives of this study was to collect a range of views from the participants about policies that might be involved in assuring environmental security and the institutions and organizations that might be responsible for forming and implementing these policies. Although the participants had a wide range of opinions about these matters and often differed significantly in their views, some common themes and questions emerged from their contributions. These and significant points of view are reported in this section.

Foremost among these themes were questions of leadership and responsibility, enforcement, international agreements, national interests and military implications, and means and modes of cooperation.

5.1 Who should have the responsibility for assuring environmental security? The principal answers: national governments; UN agencies; and, for at least a few respondents, new institutions.

UN agencies should lead, but implementation..... requires all levels and all divisions within national bureaucracies to instigate reform.

....Nearly every one of the issues require coordination and execution by a variety of organizations, both international and domestic, in order to develop effective policies and solutions. I believe that nearly every issue requires a civilian government entity to set policy, and often, to energize other organizations to assist with the work, whether that is militaries, intelligence communities, NGOs, businesses, etc. Except for the civilian government, and on many occasions IGOs, the organizations such as the military will not or should not act on their own regarding these issues. The others may act, generally affecting small scale, localized solutions, or by creating enormous environmental blunders as in the case of a particular international financial institution during the 1970s and 80s. The latter is one reason why broad effective policy must be developed that includes bringing all players to the table. Civilian governments and IGOs are likely in a better position to accomplish this task, providing they have legitimacy and the willingness to do so.
 

....All the organizations should set internal policies on how to deal with a variety of these situations. In the case of militaries and the governmental intelligence communities, their policies should be reflecting the broader policy direction set forth by the political leadership and in coordination with civilian agency policies. Thus, militaries and intelligence communities should not be acting without full coordination with the civilian government. Importantly, it is the civilian government that should be setting the major policies for nearly all of the issues in this questionnaire. They may choose to have their militaries and intelligence communities step forward to support when necessary, generally in times of crisis; however, military and intelligence responses are not the solution for any of these complex issues.
 

The primary point of coordination should be a political entity above the level of the state. Yet the formal and 'group of states' represented by the regional examples may still be too state-based. One should hope regional and international structures would also work better with NGOs.
 

Commitment to environmental security must be at highest level of government (i.e. President, Governor or provincial administration, and local leader)..... Environmental issues should not be relegated to an Environmental Ministry but rather be a priority. Annual reporting should be a requirement of all agencies. This process will only have an impact if the top level of government supports this priority and holds agencies accountable.
 

Governments of each country should assume responsibility for protecting natural resources and enforcing regulations and international agreements. In addition, an international organization should be empowered to protect natural resources in situations where countries openly defy international conventions (e.g. Japan and Norway's ongoing whaling activities). Such an organization (whether a newly created one, or something stemming from existing organizations) needs to have the teeth to effectively enforce these agreements.
 

Any international issue which crosses traditional lines should normally be coordinated at the State Department with appropriate involvement by the National Security Council on key issues or initiatives. The relevant agencies and offices in the USG should of course make contact with and seek the aid of international organizations. The U.S. Department of Defense should stay focused on those matters closest to its missions and which it knows best including clean-up of military facilities and deterrence or prevention of military aggression involving environmental degradation. In general, new institutions would be duplicative, there would be a strong domestic reaction in the U.S. to any efforts to assert any sort of international sovereignty over U.S. domestic activities. Thus, developers of policies, to be effective, should keep this reality in mind as they consider how to proceed.
 

My main concern is that corporations, NGOs , government agencies and international agencies should be involved in the discussion to formulate, promulgate, expedite and implement these policy instruments. The progress with Rio 92, limited though it is, encourages me about such a process.
 

Environmental Security has to be an integral part of a nation's foreign policy; it cannot be pursued in isolation by lower level organizations. Therefore national governments should lead in policy development. Ministries/departments can only act within national guidelines. These could be far- reaching and imaginative, in which case all the quoted government activities could be put to use. However the converse could also be true for those countries which do not have the resources or, have a vested interest in not pursuing cooperation. In developing an effective national policy it will be necessary to involve NGO, media etc. A new institution is probably NOT needed; this statement will require review. The resolution of issues will have to come from within, and between, individual countries. Data gathering, analysis and dissemination of information could be done by UNEP, UNESCO, UNHCR etc. as appropriate. The role of the Security Council could be similar to that used in authorizing peacekeeping missions.
 

Environmental security should be part of all ministries and organizations, although during the initial steps the existence of a dedicated organization would be beneficial to act like an "engine" for the implementation of environmental security.
 

Government should assume the responsibility of protection of public resources and environments.
 

Briefly, I suppose that our hope is looking for new kind of governance through reformed UN and adopted Global Marshall Plan. At the national level, the Ministry of the Environment should not be light weight any more and understood as ministry for environment and sustainable development with the same importance and significance as the Ministry of Finance, for example.
 

Scarcity of renewable resources like water and land tend to be local and or regional issues that need local and or regional solutions. The regional actions could benefit from global support (through broadened GEF for example, e.g. "white revolution" increasing water efficiency or second "Green Revolution" optimizing farming systems).
 

5.2 Collecting, analyzing and sharing information about the environment is important in several ways: first, it can help establish when and if environmental security is threatened. Second it can help policy makers develop informed policies. Finally, sharing of information among nations is a positive way to cooperate.
 

The provision of common defense against environmental threats can best be achieved by interested parties knowing what is proposed throughout their region. Early consultation and transparency of proposals will help to reduce the potential for conflict. The sharing of information will be one of the best ways for governments to cooperate. However there will always be commercial and/or private elements which cannot necessarily be counted on to cooperate. This situation will probably require national measures and legislation based on some form of international agreement.
 

Where appropriate, intelligence information, particularly archival information may be used to provide additional environmental data for analyses. Some of this is already underway in several nations.
 

In the context of this study, one area of focus for assistance should be capacity building for environmental security. One specific example is improved capacity for environmental monitoring.
 

A key area is to improve the quality of environmental information (especially national and regional data sets) and education......This should be funded by advanced industrial states, perhaps through the GEF to support information and education in developing and transition states. UNEP should play a role in upgrading data set standards, making information available, and supporting environmental education. In advanced industrial states, emphasis needs to be placed on integrating environmental education into the curriculum at all levels, beginning with first grade.
 

New electronic media, such as Internet will play increasingly important roles in terms of promoting awareness and communication.
 
 

5.3 Several strategies were suggested for improving environmental security in developing countries.
 

One of the biggest contributions the developed world can make towards environmental security at all levels is through strengthened commitment to foreign assistance and technology transfer to the developing world.
 

Countries with weaker capacities to participate in international agreements need to be technically strengthened so that they are equal players at the table. In particular, countries need the technical capacity to reliably assess resource needs and, by environmental monitoring, the extent to which they are being met. Technical capacity to monitor and deal with environmental change more proactively should be substituted for resorting to conflict.
 

Local and regional issues need local and regional solutions - concerted regional actions with possible global support (through broadened GEF for example, e.g. "white revolution" increasing water efficiency, 2nd Green Revolution optimizing farming systems).
 
 

5.4 The private sector is important but its role is controversial.
 

When the private sector views environment or conservation as good for business, it will play a critical role. Most MNCs in Africa sponsor numerous conservation projects or game parks because it is viewed as good PR. However, this does not necessarily stop these companies from engaging in environmentally destructive production practices. The fundamental link between short-term economic costs and medium-long term environmental costs will have to be made. The driving force for this must come from changes in consumer demand and will also require new mandatory regulations by national governments (and international regulation accepted by key nation-states) before there will be meaningful changes in major business practices in any sector (e.g., shift from combustion engine to newer technologies by car industry; shift from fossil fuels to cleaner forms by energy corporations).
 

The private sector can play a critical role in increasing awareness and implementing new practices in developing countries. For example, South Africa viewed emission trading credits as a major priority, because potential foreign investors wanted to know what the country's policy was and this issue was linked to the immediate priorities of increasing foreign investments and job creation. Thus, global and national regulatory policies and treaties can often be enforced most effectively through private sector business practices. The bottom line is that corporations must be convinced that these changes are necessary either to continue operating, to increase short-term profits, or longer-term market shares.
 

Incentives need to be further developed and promoted for private commercial sector involvement, as is being pursued with regards to climate change. And, bilateral and multilateral assistance should be maintained at current levels, or even increased.
 
 

5.5 Other organizations and media may also have responsibilities.
 

NGOs can play useful roles as stakeholders and lobbying groups. The land mines treaty and current efforts related to lobbying for global conventions on small arms agreements illustrate the power of groups in addition to their usefulness as providers of technical aid and advisers. NGOs are also increasingly important as contractors for regional IGOs in developing areas. (i.e., first regional report on state of environment in Southern Africa written by ICUM).... Media can play key roles but commercial stations will continue to reflect mainstream controversies, so coverage will be determined by actions of government, business, IGOs, NGOs, and spontaneous movements. Public access stations could also play a huge role in shaping debates, as could public radio stations.
 

Awareness is needed in the industrialized world of the way personal consumption contributes substantially to the consumption of living and non-living resources, and the production of wastes. Information should be provided that not only makes consumers aware of the consequences of their decisions but also offers options which will lessen the impacts of consumption. A coordinated commitment is required from international, national, and local agencies, including governments, NGO's, researchers, media religious groups and political groups.
 

Research by academic institutes with findings spread by mass media will help people understand the mechanisms, and responsibilities associated with environment security, and mobilize the masses to form ideologies to take care of the environment.
 

Promote national, regional and global dialogue on environmental issues. Environmental issues should be included on all agenda such as WTO discussions, G7 discussions, regional security discussions, etc. Leadership should come form a variety of sites, including advanced industrial states, NGOs, and international organizations. Good models include the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington which encourages interagency dialogue on environmental security, NATO's Advanced Research Workshops which allow experts from NATO and non NATO countries to meet to discuss these topics, and the meetings on regional security and environmental change organized by the Asia Pacific Center for Security Studies in Hawaii.
 

5.6 Many international treaties and agreements relating to environmental security are in place; more may be needed. New policy suggestions should be built on knowledge of existing treaties and agreements.
 

Of course, international treaties are needed. The improvements in treaties should be continuous in order to effectively address current challenges.
 

Consider all of the international environmental treaties, conventions and protocols under the UN. Some that spring to mind are transboundary pollution (acid rain), endangered species (CITES), desertification, London dumping convention (ocean pollution).
 

Signatories to the various statements of intent emerging from the 1992 Rio Conference should make a genuine and concerted effort to implement these provisions. There is no need to reinvent policy; enacting what has already been widely agreed upon in principle would make massive inroads into the problem of environmental insecurity.
 

IGOs (International Government Organizations) can play a useful role in promoting global and regional treaties and norms but these agreements must be supported by major nation-states in both the developed and developing world.
 

Where possible, strengthen or refine existing policies, treaties, structures, and organizations, instead creating new ones. Greater clarity and definition of the roles and responsibilities of existing transboundary institutions is needed. Bilateral commissions and authorities operating within larger river basins may need to broaden into multilateral institutions to achieve greater harmony of national policies/laws across all countries in a basin. Harmonization of national or sub-national policies/laws with international protocols may be a key initiative towards environmental security. Harmonization will assume greater criticality as countries decentralize policy-making and implementation.
 

5.7 The question of enforcement remains: what teeth do existing organizations and treaties have? Must military organizations enforce the treaties and under what circumstances?
 

There obviously needs to be strengthened provisions related to reporting and transparency by nation-states, verification by third parties, and enforcement.
 

An international organization should be empowered to protect natural resources in situations where countries openly defy international conventions (e.g. Japan and Norway's ongoing whaling activities). Such an organization (whether a newly created one, or something stemming from

existing organizations) needs to have the teeth to effectively enforce these agreements.
 

5.8 Two people argued against creating general policies for environmental security:
 

There is a need for security policy reform, in light of the changing nature of security threats and the changing opportunities for coping with them. And there is a need for environmental policy reform, in light of the mismatch between existing global management capacity and likely threats to environmental resources. But it does not follow that there is any need for environmental security policy per se. It is possible that attempts to fashion environmental security policy will diminish the prospects for effective reform of security and environmental policy.
 

....Signatories to the various statements of intent emerging from the 1992 Rio Conference should make a genuine and concerted effort to implement these provisions. There is in this sense no need to reinvent policy, enacting what has already been widely agreed upon in principle would make massive inroads into the problem of environmental insecurity. The UN agencies should lead, but implementation now initially requires all levels and all divisions within national bureaucracies to instigate reform.
 
 

5.9 In some instances environmental security was seen as a military matter. Several sorts of missions were envisioned. One was the use of force to protect a nations interests that are challenged by environmental changes. Another is the protection of the environment from the damage that the military itself may cause. A third is the role of the military in safeguarding natural resources.
 

Environmental security should be considered as an organic part of the total defensive capability of a country. This will require a detailed analysis of the possible dangers, and the strategic response of preparative and preventive measures...
 

Many environmental issues impact quality of life, military training, and operations of military facilities. More recently, though, DOD has begun to recognize the linkage between environmental degradation and regional stability throughout the world...Today we are proud that we are fully integrating environmental protection into the military mission...
 

We must conduct our military operations in a manner protective of the environment.... Such is the challenge of environmental security.
 

Various agencies of the US Government use the concept of environmental security, including the CIA, Defense Intelligence, Department of Defense, Department of State, and the EPA. There is no official definition that unifies thinking and action related to environmental security; rather, each group has developed its own understanding.
 

Thus the CIA and Defense tend to stress the relationship between environmental change and conflict and instability. Sherri Goodman, Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Environmental Security has related the concept to former Secretary of Defense William Perry's notion of

"preventive defense" According to Goodman, Defense's objective is to "understand where and under what circumstances environmental degradation and scarcity may contribute to instability and conflict, and to address those conditions early enough to make a difference." (August 8, 1996 speech)
 

In contrast, DIA is concerned more with environmental threats to military personnel stationed abroad. Its focus is on water quality, infectious disease and so on...
 

The provision of common defense against environmental threats can best be achieved by interested parties knowing what is proposed throughout their region. Early consultation and transparency of proposals will help to reduce the potential for conflict. The sharing of information will be one of the best ways for governments to cooperate. However there will always be a commercial and/or private element which cannot necessarily be counted on to cooperate. This situation will probably require national measures/legislation based on some form of international agreement/treaty/arrangement.
 

General Policy Comments to Improve Environmental Security
 

A coordinated effort to educate the world about the environmental impacts of consumption is needed from international, national, and local agencies both formal and informal, including governments, NGO's, researchers, media, and religious and political groups. In addition to making consumers aware the consequences of their decisions, the educational effort should also offer options which will lessen the impacts of consumption.
 

Promote national, regional and global dialogues on environmental issues. Environmental issues should be included on all agenda such as WTO discussions, G-8 discussions, regional security discussions etc. Advanced industrial states should lead with some assistance from , NGOs, and international organizations. Good models include the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington which encourages interagency dialogue on environmental security, NATO's Advanced Research Workshops which allow experts from NATO and non NATO countries to meet to discuss these topics, and the meetings on regional security and environmental change organized by the Asia Pacific Center for Security Studies in Hawaii.
 

Sustainable development is a key aspect of the condition of environmental security and should be promoted through a variety of mechanisms including education, steering national economies with tax and subsidy programs, promoting green technology innovation, diffusion and implementation, and strengthening multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs). In particular, it is important for a coalition of political elites, non-state actors and representatives of IOs to study the effectiveness of MEAs and determine ways in which compliance can be improved and standards can be strengthened.
 

Countries with weaker capacity to participate in international agreements need to be technically strengthened so that they are equal players at the table. In particular, countries need the technical capacity to reliably assess resource needs and, by environmental monitoring, the extent to which they are being met. Technical capacity to monitor and deal with environmental change more proactively should be substituted for resorting to conflict. Following this observation is the suggestion that one of the biggest contributions the developed world can make towards environmental security at all levels is through strengthened commitment to foreign assistance and technology transfer to the developing world. Incentives need to be further developed and promoted for private commercial sector involvement - as is being pursued with regards to climate change. And, bilateral and multilateral assistance should be maintained at current levels, or - preferably - increased. In the context of this study, one area of focus for assistance should be capacity building for environmental security - one specific example is improved capacity for environmental monitoring.
 

Perhaps what is more needed is not so much a definition of environmental security, but an effort to turn the inward focus of the U.S. back outwards. Policy makers should more forcefully and convincingly be made aware of the links between U.S. interests (inclusive of environmental security) and environmental security elsewhere (again, down to the individual/household level) - without enmeshing the effort in jargon. And, again, the effort does need to focus in part on households, communities (often not visible in national security dialogues) - higher level environmental security not built on a foundation of security at these levels is shaky at best.
 

Establishing a definition for environmental security is necessary before setting policy and institutional responsibilities. In the mean time, aligning environmental perturbations with environmental security is inappropriate. Perhaps the best approach would be to take a case study - the use of CFCs to manufacture and maintain weapons systems might be a good one - and look at how the institutional structure evolved in many directions to manage that challenge. Then see if the template derived from that exercise offers any insight on future institutional evolution.

Millennium Project home page

Environmental Security Study - Table of Content