Ecological Security: Conceptual Framework and Security Discourses

Conceptual Framework of Ecological Security: Core Definitions and Dialectics

• Foundational Question: Securitization vs. De-securitization

  • The core debate in ecological security involves a choice between two primary strategies:

    • Securitization (Mitigation): Should we treat climate, the environment, and ecology as security threats to prompt immediate, high-priority action and mitigation efforts?

    • De-securitization (Adaptation): Should we focus on learning to live with changing environmental conditions, treating them as political and social challenges rather than existential security threats?

• The Four Dynamic Equilibria of Ecological Security

  • According to Pirages and Manley ($2004: 21$), ecological security is defined by the preservation of balances in four key areas:

    1. Human Demands and Nature's Provision: The equilibrium between what humans require and nature's ability to supply resources and ecosystem services.

    2. Human and Animal Populations: The balance between the size and demands of human populations and those of other animal species.

    3. Medical Technology and Pathogens: The balance between health policies/medical technologies and the evolving nature and number of pathogenic microorganisms.

    4. Resource Demands and Conflict Management: The balance between the growing resource needs of populations and the societal capacity to manage conflicts arising from those demands.

Challenges to Ecological Security and the Dynamic Evolutionary Equilibrium

• Classification of Challenges

  • In Nature (Biophysical Changes): Environmental shifts, such as severe droughts, that trigger declines in animal populations and disrupt the existing biophysical state.

  • In Society (Sociocultural Change): Human-driven factors, such as rapid population growth, which can cause the collapse of environmental systems or the extinction of species.

• Strengthening Ecological Security

  • Ecological security is not a static state but a 'Dynamic evolutionary equilibrium' (Pirages and Manley $2004$).

  • Societies can strengthen this security by enhancing their capabilities to anticipate and manage challenges that threaten the integrity of these coevolutionary relationships.

• The Pathogen-Human Relationship

  • Humans and microorganisms have coevolved over centuries in a relatively peaceful coexistence.

  • Stability Mechanisms: Coevolution has been enabled by the human immune system, which is described as being 'honed by repeated encounters with pathogens,' leading to herd immunity.

  • Modern Complications: The acceleration of human movement across continents increases the risk of bringing populations into contact with pathogens for which they have no prior immunity, creating potential security problematic.

Comparative Security Discourses in Climate and Ecology

Based on McDonald ($2013, 2018$), there are four distinct frameworks through which climate security is understood:

• National Security Discourse

  • Referent: The Nation-state.

  • Threat: Conflict, loss of sovereignty, and economic interests.

  • Agent of Security: The State.

  • Response: Adaptation.

• Human Security Discourse

  • Referent: Individual people.

  • Threat: Life and livelihood, core values, and cultural practices.

  • Agent of Security: States, NGOs, international communities, and the communities themselves.

  • Response: Mitigation.

• International Security Discourse

  • Referent: International society.

  • Threat: Conflict and global instability.

  • Agent of Security: International organizations.

  • Response: Both mitigation and adaptation.

• Ecological Security Discourse

  • Referent: Ecosystems.

  • Threat: Challenges to the equilibrium caused by current political, social, and economic structures (changing political consciousness).

  • Agent of Security: People and evolving political consciousness.

  • Response: Fundamental reorientation of societal patterns and behavior.

Specific Strategies: Mitigation vs. Adaptation

• Adaptation: The process of adjusting to current and projected impacts of climate change. The goal is to reduce vulnerability, build resilience, and protect infrastructure, communities, and ecosystems.

• Mitigation: Strategies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions to minimize the extent of global warming. It addresses the root causes by reducing gas releases and promoting sustainable practices to stabilize atmospheric concentrations.

Analytical History: National and International Security Framings

• The National Security Lens

  • Academic roots date back to Brown ($1989$), Dalby ($1992$), and Litfin ($1999$).

  • The relationship was 'rediscovered' in the mid-$2000s$ by scholars like Dalby ($2000$), Kaiser ($2011$), and Mulligan ($2012$).

  • Threat Multiplier Concept: Early assessments by the Council on Foreign Relations and the Centre for a New American Century describe climate change as a 'threat multiplier' that complicates strategic considerations.

  • State Implementation: Multiple nations now corporate climate change into national security documents, including the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, Finland, Pakistan, Vietnam, Bangladesh, and New Zealand.

• The International Security Lens

  • Prominent in the United Nations; UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and UNEP linked the Darfur conflict to climate change.

  • The UN Security Council (UNSC) officially addressed the implications of climate change in $2007$ and $2011$.

  • Studies suggest that approximately $40$ states are at risk of climate-induced conflict (McDonald $2018: 160$).

• The Human Security Lens

  • Focuses on 'freedom from' and 'freedom to' (Paris $2001$).

  • Prioritizes the rights and well-being of individuals.

  • Endorsed by the UNDP and UN General Assembly, placing people at the center of analysis while viewing states and civil society as security providers.

The Securitization Debate and Its Consequences

• Objections to the Ecological Discourse

  • Critics argue the discourse can lead to misanthropicism or ecofascism.

  • Philosophical difficulties arise in accounting for the needs of non-humans or future generations and defining the 'biosphere' as a referent object.

  • Framing climate as 'security' can preserve the status quo ('master narrative') rather than prompting genuine change.

• The Risk of Securitization (Copenhagen School)

  • Securitizing climate risks moving the issue from the realm of normal international politics to a state of 'emergency measure' or exception.

  • Deudney ($1991$) warns that linking the environment to security risks the militarization of the environment.

  • Call for De-securitization: Many advocate removing climate from the security agenda to prevent illiberalism, exclusion, and exceptionalism.

• Political Legitimacy

  • A primary benefit of the 'security' framing is that it provides priority, urgency, and political legitimacy, which helps in securing funding and attention for environmental issues.

International Environmental Law Chronology

• $1973$: Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)

• $1979$: Convention on Migratory Species (CMS)

• $1982$: United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)

• $1985$: Montreal Protocol

• $1992$: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

• $1994$: United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification

• $1997$: The Kyoto Protocol

• $2015$: The Paris Agreement