The key findings of this international study are:
1. Environmental security is an increasing issue in world affairs. Currently there is little coherence around the world about its definition, threats, and policy responsibilities. The greatest area of disagreement regarded when policy leadership should come from national governments vs international organizations.
2. Few countries have an official definition of environmental security that unifies thought and action. Among the countries that do have definitions are: The Russian Federation and the Commonwealth of Independent States; the United States which has several working definitions and a DoD Directive which includes a programmatic definition; Embassy Representatives from Argentina and India indicated that their countries did have an official definition, but the text has not been received at this writing. Respondents in China, Australia, and Hungary said their governments were currently creating a definition. China considers environmental security under the umbrella of "environmental protection."
3. The relevant international organizations have not created a definition to guide policy. For example the United Nations Environment Program and the World Heath Organization do not have definitions for environmental security, and the United Nations Development Program only refers to it briefly in its 1994 annual report on human development. NATO continues to list environmental security as among its most important priorities.
4. The elements of the definition clustered around two central concepts:
Repairing damage to environment (a) for human life support and (b) for the moral value of the environment itself; and
Preventing damage to the environment from attacks and other forms of human abuse.
Of the five suggested definitions presented to the international panel, the following two received the highest ratings:
2) concerns about the direct and indirect effects of various forms of environmental change (especially scarcity and degradation) which may be natural or human-generated on national and regional security. Here the focus is on environmental change triggering, intensifying or generating the forms of conflict and instability relevant to conventional security thinking. Research suggests that interstate war is less likely than diffuse civil violence. A subsidiary question is: what can conventional security resources do to address these threats? Suggestions include: using intelligence data gathering and analysis assets, promoting technology transfer and dialogue through military to military contact programs, using the army corps of engineers to help tackle specific environmental problems, etc. A related question is, can military training, testing and war fighting activities be made less harmful to the environment;
3) concerns about the insecurity individuals and groups (from small communities to humankind) experience due to environmental change such as water scarcity, air pollution, global warming, and so on. Here the focus is on the material well-being of individuals and there is no presumption that this is a traditional security issue or that traditional security assets will be useful.
Combining these, we might conclude that the condition of environmental security is one in which social systems interact with ecological systems in sustainable ways, all individuals have fair and reasonable access to environmental goods, and mechanisms exist to address environmental crises and conflicts.
5. Environmental security threats often involve transborder and/or global impacts that would require international cooperation. Nation-states acting alone can not provide environmental security. International organizations do not have the capacity to address the threats. The weight of decision power rests with national governments. As a result, national sovereignty can come in conflict with actions necessary to insure environmental security.
6. US leadership for environmental security policy within international organizations is considered necessary and desirable.
7. There is concern about the potential militarization of environmental policy. Where does the defense responsibility and definitions for environmental security begin and end relative to civilian environmental agencies?
8. There are two embryonic schools of thought regarding military budgets and the environment. One argues that money should be taken from military budgets to solve environmental problems. A World Watch report, Fighting for Survival argues that $200 billion of the world's $800 billion military budgets should be used to preserve and manage our natural environment. The view argues that the military should get involved in solving environmental problems beyond those they directly cause in operations and training. Only the military has the logistic capacity and financial resources to manage complex global programs.
9. Environmental security based on the assumption that population pressures on environment will lead to conflict is not universally correct. Environmental conditions in places as diverse as Nepal and Pittsburgh have improved with increased population. On the other hand, human creativity and the will to act intelligently to improve conditions are also not universally applied either.
10. Many environmentalists argue that fundamental changes in assumptions about life, economics, and culture are necessary to assure environmental security. Tinkering with policy and management practices they believe is simply re-arranging the chairs on the Titanic.
11. There is confusion about the difference between environmental security and sustainable development. Although sustainable development and environmental security are mutually reinforcing concepts and directions for policy, they are not the same thing. Sustainable development focuses on environmentally sound socio-economic development, while environmental security focuses on preventing conflict related to environmental factors, as well as the additional military needs to protect their forces from environmental hazards and repair military-related environmental damages.
12. The international panel identified the following (without rank order) as the most important environmental security threats over the next ten years:
Human population growth and loss of biodiversity
Climate change - not for its manifestations but for the momentum or lack of action
Water scarcity and pollution including ground water contamination
Food security
Environmental refugees
Deforestation
Industrial contamination of air and oceans
Soil conservation/erosion
Nuclear safety issues
Ozone depletion
Global warming
13. Common conceptual frameworks will be helpful to help reduce confusion and complexity and bring more coherence to the environmental security dialoges. The charts and matrixes below were edited and found to be useful by the participants of the study. The first chart provides a framework to help organize the "big picture" thinking about environmental security:
The table below can be used to help organize thinking about the kinds of threats and policy responsibilities. More details about this chart can be found in Chapter 3.
Some Examples of Environmental
Security Threats
| By Ignorance and/or Mismanagement | By Intention | Mix of Natural and Human Actions | |
| Within a Country | C.1
Oil spills in Ogoniland Nigeria Aral Sea depletion in Russia Indonesian fires Ground water contamination and fresh water scarcity Hazardous wastes Soil erosion Human settlement and development patterns |
C.2
Sarin gas attack in Tokyo subway Chemical attacks and draining marshes in Iraq Poisoning or diversion or misuse of water resources |
C.3
Floods Famines Salinization Earthquakes Introduction of exotic species |
| Trans-border | C.4
Rain forest depletion River usage in (Jordan, Nile, Tigris, Euphrates) Chernobyl Nuclear Accident Diminishing Biodiversity Ozone depletion Fisheries depletion Global climate change Acid rain and Air Pollution Poverty Radioactive waste |
C.5
Burning oil fields in Kuwait Poisoning water Dam construction and water diversion Biological weapons |
C.6
Solar radiation changes Global Warming New, emerging, and drug resistant diseases such as AIDS and others affecting plans and animals Desertification Population Growth Rich-Poor Gap |
Such threats can also be organized by time. Futurists tend to define short-term as 0-5 years, mid-term as 5-25 years, and long-term as beyond 25 years. Environmental time scales are quite longer and depend on which subjects in nature are being considered. Time scales could be in terms of generations. It can also be organized in terms of timeliness of response such as immediate (biological weapons), soon (depletion of fisheries), and over a longer period of time (global warming). However, to begin the process, it is recommended to use the 0-5, 5-25, and beyond 25 years' time frames.
The following matrix is intended to help the analyst organize threats by immanence of impact. This can help identify priorities: which treats require the development of policy and strategy now; which allows for more time; and which require long-range policy and strategy than must be maintained over a longer period of time.
Time Dimension and Environmental Security Threats
In a similar way, threats can also
be organized by policy leadership or policy responsibility. The overall
organization for environmental security would include International Organizations,
National Governments, Regional Bodies, NGOs, and Corporations. Each of
these would have sub-matrices, like the one below organized by national
government's responsibilities in terms of military, intelligence, and civilian
agencies.
The following matrix is intended to help the analyst organize threats by policy responsibility. This can help identify jurisdictions. Different organizations could list their views of responsibilities in such a common matrix. The results would illustrate shared agreement, disagreement, and the needs for further clarification.
Policy Dimension and Environmental Security Threats - for a National Government
The requirement of the Clinton administration
that all Executive agencies must justify strategy, plans, and programs
in terms of environmental impact in addition to more general US national
policy goals has had a huge impact on the planning process of organizations
that were not previously focused on environmental issues. Sherri Goodman,
U.S. 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). This office
also focuses on the restoration of environmental damage due to military
activities and the safety of personnel due to environmental pollution.
Former U.S. Secretary of State, Warren
Christopher, said in April 1996 that as we move to the 21st century, the
nexus between security and the environment will become even more apparent.
Unfortunately, there is little clarity about the nature of this nexus,
the policies to address it, and responsibility for leadership in this area.
Further, this is not simply an issue for some nations, but all nations.
French President Jacques Chirac and UNESCO
Director-General Federico Mayor warned delegates from 80 countries to the
Water and Sustainable Development conference in March 1998 that water wars
could breakout unless international cooperation solves water problems quickly.
Without greater measures to insure environmental security, continued population and economic growth will diminish natural life support systems leading to migration and conflict. With half the world clustering into urban environments, natural disasters and global environmental change affect greater numbers of people who are dependent on civil systems for water, power, transportation, food, and other manufactured systems. Low cost and relatively simple methods - compared to nuclear weapons - for environmental destruction increase the opportunities for even small terrorist groups to destabilize large populations. Military operations and training also have environmental impacts that threaten their own troops as well as having potential long-term impacts on civilian populations. As a result, the environment is now considered in terms of human security and viewed much more urgent and important a future challenge than conventional and nuclear war - not withstanding the recent tests in India and Pakistan.(Enhancing the Economic Role of the United Nations. South Center, October 1992; Bjorkbon, L. et als., 1992Soroos, M 1989; Young, O. 1989).
