Securitization of the Environment Essay Example

of security as subjective rather than objective in nature. Meaning that, securitized issues do not have to be real but they can be brought to people’s attention as something that can be socially declared as a threat through speech acts. In this paper, we shall consider whether securitization of the environment should be encouraged or discouraged in the environment.

Reasons to Encourage Securitization in the Environment

Securitization is applicable in various dimensions in the society such as politics, the military, the economy, immigrants as well as the environment. The environment is a valuable resource in every state in terms of the availability of minerals, the richness of the soil, beautiful sceneries, favorable climate and availability of water. Moreover, the environment is also defined by the number of people living in it as well as their productivity. These are important factors that every country would like to protect whenever threats in the environment are at stake. The following are reasons supporting securitization in the environment.

The Availability of Scientific and Political Back Up

Securitization of the environment has two agendas which are the scientific agenda as well as the political agenda (Trombetta, 2010). The scientific agenda is significant in providing scientific proof for the reality of environmental threats. It explains why some threats in the environment have more weight than others through scientific references that have been derived from experiments and thorough research and work form non-governmental organizations. Hence, it adds more reality as to why some environmental problems are threats to civil development in various nations. The political agenda, on the other hand, considers heavily on government problems such as public decisions, intergovernmental negotiations and political strategies rooting from

threats in the environment. Of importance in the political agenda is not whether the threat is real or not, but whether the threat and its significance in the environment would result in political problems in the long run. The interconnection between the two agendas is that scientific agenda, from time to time supplements the political agenda thus constituting the relevance of securitization of the environment. Therefore, securitization can be logical whenever it is argued for with facts.

Prevention of Environmental Conflict

Environmental problems such as climate change, scarcity of water, cattle rustling and insufficient sources of food within a country can be regarded as threats. Why? Because humanity depends on the availability of such resources and when they are depleted in their environment, they will be forced to move to other places in search for them. This is not easy with the current world order, for example, it is impossible for people to freely move from one country to another without having legal permission. To add, force cannot be used to displace people from their residential areas due to the need to use the resources that their land has been endowed with. Definitely, conflict has to arise in such situations leading to rivalry between ethnic groups or between states creating havoc. The conflict between Syria and Israel over the Golan Heights which was originally part of Syria but has been occupied by Israel from 1976 is one of the conflicts that result from lack of securitization (Waage and Stenberg, 2016). Israel claimed the land due to the water supply it will be providing to its country and the oil deposits that have been recently discovered there in

2015. Therefore, with securitization of the environment, conflict is less likely to occur.

Control of Climate Change

Consistent pollution of the environment and emission of gases which high components of carbon elements in the atmosphere results in global warming which also leads to change in climate. Climate change has security implications which are the driving forces to war and disputes. According to the Global Humanitarian Forum in 2009, climate change has been the reason behind a record of 300,000 deaths yearly. Moreover, the European Commission in 2008 cautiously regarded climate change as a threat multiplier (Harris, 2012). Through consistent speech acts to civilians in a country, climate change in the environment can be sensitized as an environmental threat. This way, institutions can engage in civic responsibilities that prevent pollution and emission of safe gases into the atmosphere thus regulating climate change.

Prevention of Environmental Degradation

Securitization of the environment helps to control environmental degradation by regulating the human actions and reactions in nature which will soon affect the future. Let us consider fertilizers, they may be useful in making the soil fertile in the current time but subsequent use results to leaching and high chemical deposits in the soil which will adversely affect the soil profile and crops grown. Crop failures will occur as a result of indiscriminate utilization of pesticides, rivers will break their banks due to soil erosion. Moreover, the use of nonrenewable resources are non-biodegradable and they have high percentages of carbon elements which when released into the atmosphere corrode the ozone layer and ultimately contributing to global warming. Moreover, depletion of nonrenewable sources of energy result in shortages and there will be competition in attempts

to acquire them in future since prices will be higher. Generally, these threats cause environmental degradation and without securitization, the state of the environment will not be conducive for humanity.

Promotion of National Security

Environmental problems places the securities of different states at stake. As mentioned earlier, Syria lost its sovereign possession of the Golan Heights to Israel due to environmental threats. Wars that are likely to spark off from intergovernmental conflicts can cause deaths to innocent civilians caught between the feuds. Other insecurities arise from the misuse of available resources will result in food shortages, lack of water and outbreak of diseases as a result of consistent pollution. Moreover, the changing climate conditions, lack of preparedness for natural disasters as well as the degradation of the environment will not favor human survival in the future.

For example, in February 2010, Chile was devastated by an earthquake that was stronger than the one that hit Haiti on that previous month. However, Haiti suffered more damages and loss than Chile as a result of lack of preparedness to face such disasters, poor infrastructure planning along with lack of a post-disaster response to treat casualties whereas Chile was able to maintain most of its building structures which had been built on the basis of disaster preparation (Vanholder et al, 2010). This situation proves the need for securitization in the environment since by doing so countries like Haiti would have been at a better position to go through the earthquake and prevent the loss of lives and damages from environmental threats.

Reasons to Discourage Securitization in the Environment

Securitization of the environment may be beneficial, however, some of these benefits are faced with

challenges which are discussed in detail as follows.

The Presence of Many Actors

The securitization of the environment leads to the rise of various actors each having different and opposing opinions on the matter. For example, the government may insist on corporate investors and industries within the country to engage in activities which prioritize environmental conservation. Factories could be urged to recycle their waste rather than disposing them on plain land and pouring poisonous effluents in water streams which in the long run degrade the environment. Such corporations may find this difficult and they instead go ahead engaging in reckless waste disposal. Environmental conservers will not be pleased by their activities afterwards and therefore partner with the government in prohibiting reckless disposal among these companies which have no alternative methods of to do so. In this case, the attempt to securitizing the environment (by the government and environmentalists) have transformational intentions which contrasts with conservative party (the factories). This is contrary to Ole Wæver statement that ‘security is articulated only from a specific place through an institutional voice from elites’

Difference in Perceptions

Different people, groups and states have different needs. This depends on the social, cultural and economic status that they possess. This is also a reason to discourage securitization of the environment since some of the problems that some countries view as a threat do not seem to be relevant to another country. As mentioned earlier in this study, Haiti and Chile were both devastated by earth quakes and Haiti suffered more loss than Chile despite the fact that Chile’s earthquakes was stronger than Haiti’s. Chile bore less casualties and damages because it is wealthier and the

foundation of its buildings were based on disaster preparedness, specifically earthquakes therefore the seismic calamity was not much of a setback to the country. However, Haiti, being a less developed country is still on a slow path to recovery from the earthquake losses.

Furthermore, landlocked countries in Africa, specifically in the Sahara desert are likely to face conflicts over water resources available in the region whereas countries next to the ocean and seas are less likely to find the lack of water as an environmental problem. Hence securitization may not be applicable in such countries.

Politicization

Countries have different strategies which are of foremost concern to them. When it comes to developing a framework for securitization of the environment, politics is one of the facts that influencing the framework through speech acts (Simao and Dias, 2016). These speech acts usually are done by people with different ideologies trying to convince others of either the relevance or irrelevance of a certain securitization act in the environment. For example, industries which have been prevented by a concerned government to recklessly dispose waste material may consider that they are being forced to do so in order to be kicked out their market for selfish interests. Once securitization of the environment is coupled up with politics, according to Ole Wæver, there can no longer be an open debate in regarding the subject as a threat. Thus politicization renders securitization of the environment unnecessary.

Conclusion

In conclusion, securitization of the environment is majorly necessary. This is beneficial in conserving the environment and ensuring sustainability of humanity in the world. Moreover, it also promotes balance to the society and taking of precautions in our daily plans

so as to prevent heavy losses in case calamities strike. Despite the difficulties and extra costs involved in implementing environmental securitization, the overall benefits derived from it will be recognized and applied in various parts of the world when the need arises.

References

1. Buzan, B. and Wæver, O., 2009. Macro securitisation and security constellations: reconsidering scale in securitisation theory. Review of international studies, vol. 35, no.02, pp. 253-276.
2. Harris, K., 2012. Climate change in UK security policy: implications for development assistance? London, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 3.
3. Simão, L. and Dias, V.A., 2016. The Securitisation of the EU’s Eastern Neighbourhood: What Role for Russia? In Security in Shared Neighbourhoods pp. 97-118. Palgrave Macmillan UK.
4. Trombetta, M.J., 2010. Rethinking the Securitization of the Environment. Securitization Theory, Abingdon: Routledge, pp.135-149.
5. Vanholder, R., Borniche, D., Claus, S, Correa-Rotter, R., Crestani, R., Ferir, M.C., Gibney, N., Hurtado, A., Luyckx, V.A., Portilla, D. and
6. Rodriguez, S., 2010. When the earth trembles in the Americas: the experience of Haiti and Chile 2010. Nephron Clinical Practice, vol. 117, no.3, pp.184-197.
7. Waage, H.H. and Stenberg, P., 2016. Cementing a State of Belligerency: The 1949 Armistice Negotiations between Israel and Syria. The Middle East Journal, vol. 70, no. 1, p. 69.