CC BY
39
СОВРЕМЕННЫЕ ВОПРОСЫ ЦИРКУМПОЛЯРНОГО МИРА
yflK 327.2
Gunhild Hoogensen Gjorv* ENERGY, ETHICS AND SECURITY
The issues of security in the Arctic in different dimensions are analyzed in the article. The author distinguishes three vital components of security in the Arctic: energy, environment and human. Natural resources and their governance play an important role in Arctic geopolitics of the early-21st century, as well as the fact that energy (security) and resource geopolitics has a long history in shaping and impacting the Arctic. Access to energy sources has become increasingly strategically important, and energy security has appeared again in re-invented forms, becoming part of the larger issues of security in the North, ranging from sovereignty (including boundaries, defense, transport/ shipping, economy) to environmental issues (ecosystems, toxins, climate change, human health). Underlying drivers include the significant geopolitical, geoeconomic and environmental changes, and changes in problem definition of security, that are happening at local, national, regional and global scales.
Key words: Arctic, security, environment, energy, ethics, Norway
Energy has been and will always be an important issue. It affects states (economy, viability of the state) but also affects increasingly demanding electorates/populations, not only in countries more accustomed to constant and consistent energy availability but also for populations that have not benefited from constant access but are themselves requiring more reliability to ensure increased development, employment, and living standards. Notions of energy "security" go beyond the dynamics of what has become a fairly narrow conception of state security that takes little consideration for the role of the individual. A power outage, a lack of transportation (cars, planes, etc) will affect people as quickly (if not quicker) than military interventions.
An interesting and important issue for debate has arisen lately as a result of practices in establishing energy security, in particular the extraction of non-renewable oil resources, in
*Gunhild Hoogensen Gj0rv — Professor of Political Science (specialization: international relations) at the University of Troms0- The Arctic University of Norway, as well as Research Associate at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (NUPI). E-mail: gunhild.hoogensen.gjorv@uit.no.
particular contentious extraction processes such as extraction of oil from the oil sands1 in Alberta, Canada. The value we place on energy has become a part of the debate. So how do we deal with how we value energy? How we address the "ethics" of energy? Particularly as the production and consumption plays such a significant role in human-induced climate change, which itself has and will continue to have increasing implications for the very lifestyles we wish to sustain through our energy consumption.
Energy security, therefore, plays an intricate role for both states and individuals and their communities. It also moves in the realm between negative and positive security, responding to "fear" but also generating activities by state and non-state actors to think about how to sustain energy production to meet consumption, at "reasonable" prices. This includes exploring renewable energy resources (which some consider a waste of money and time, such as solar and wind) and nuclear, as well as non-conventional non-renewable sources (tar sands). How are our energy requirements reconciled with an ever-increasing pressure to deal with a sensitive environment/climate, which also affects our human security?
The tension between our exploitation of natural resources (particularly non-renewable) and our desire to continue lifestyles that depend on this exploitation has led to an interesting discursive trend, and that is to construct a framework of ethics around theseissues, particularly energy. It is the assumption of an exploitation - of the environment and of the future and our future expectations - that enables the "ethics" aspect of the debate.Why do we even need to speak of energy in terms of "ethics"? If indeed energy is a need, and the source of our energy meets that need, why couch this need in ethical terms? I would argue that at least part of the explanation lies in the way in which securitization of the environment, and particularly climate change, has taken place.
But securitizing the environment does not happen in the "normal" way. It is difficult to argue an immediate, existential threat (particularly of the state). Instead the argument for a type of securitization lies in an ethical claim for the future. This is no less a "security" issue, but the time dimension is more obvious (we don't even know how far in the future we will feel the most serious effects, though we are making heavily researched estimates that give us a good idea), it is heavily "knowledge" dependent, but additionally relies on claims about our priorities (values) if not about ourselves then about our children and grand children. These claims are not necessarily incorrect, but because they rely so much on a (distant? Not-so-distant?) future that is predicted on the basis of scientific studies, the claims carry a moral as well as a scientific weight. Energy producers are then compelled to meet both a scientific as well as an ethical standpoint. Hence the emergence of the "ethical oil" phenomenon.
1The term "oil" sands is not withoutcontroversy, as it (for some) does not reflectwhat is perceived to be thereali tyoftheextractionprocess. "Oil sands" is perceived to be an attempt to make theprocess a type ofvaluefreeprocess, or at leastreduce a valuedcrticismoftheprocessonthe basis ofenvironmentaldamage and pollution. Thus somerefer to thisprocess and region as the "tar" sands, attempting to impart a different valuingoftheprocess, revealing a more toxic nature to theprocess. More recently (and this makes more specificthe "scientific" sourceoftheprocess) it has beenreferred to as the "bitumous sands"
Environmental security
Security is a historically-bound concept, that has stretched and contracted over time, as can be seen in western political thought and through various political epochs (Rothschild 1995, Hoogensen 2005, Burgess 2007, Hoogensen Gj0rv 2012)0ne of the most pivotal developments in the security debate took place through the notion of "environmental security", which has evolved both at the state level as well as at non-state (international, community, individual) levels as well, which in turn has been relevant for developments in human security.
It is important to understand that despite the power of the narrow, conflict-oriented definition of security, arguments for wider (often non-military issues) and deeper (beyond the state to the individual) security perspectives not only exist but are plentiful(Hoogensen 2005). The fact that so many attempts are made to extend our understanding of security from an ahistoricized cold-war mindset is telling about the lacking efficacy of a strictly state and conflict-oriented definition. The evolution of environmental security is a testament to the need for a wider perspective in that it, itself, has moved considerably from a narrow state perspective to something that has the potential to engage a wide range of factors and issue that go well beyond war.
Environmental security has made three distinctive and almost simultaneous evolutions; the first towards the regional and global levels reflecting the necessity of a global response to environmental issues, the second towards an environment-human awareness at the human security level, and the third a retrenchment of an original dimension of environmental security, and I would argue which has merged with what is now articulated as energy security. These evolutions speak to the types of "security providers" that exist. This results in the evolution of multiple referents, including the state (leaning towards energy security) and the individual and/or civilization (leaning towards human security), and the ecological/climate, representing the environment itself.
The global/regional dimension of environmental security often attempts to address both ecosystem/climate referents as well as human referents. At the same time, human referents may share some of the same security interests as the state with regard to energy security, and therefore an overlap can be seen to take place there as well. In other words, there can be no fixed divisions between these dimensions that have the ability to respond to various security referents depending on the context.
The question as to whether the environment should be invoked as a security issue at all has been up for debate. From a "state" security point of view, the claim of any validity for environment security is very tenuous when or if not linked explicitly to the state and national interests (Durant 2007). As Barnett notes, "much contemporary writing on environmental security, and virtually all policy statements on the subject, flow from this prevailing, nominally realist approach to security" (Barnett 2001: 32).
Despite increasing rhetoric supporting human and ecological security perspectives, it is the former that still tends to dominate:
Many Northern writings and policy pronouncements on environmental security are discursive primers for exactly this kind of defence of the environmental security of the North at the expense of the environmental insecurity of the majority of the world's population. The means of this defence include the traditional response of the deployment of military power. (Barnett 2001: 22).
The dominance of a state-based environmental security concept that is intricately linked to the narrow, national security conceptwhich embodies the potential deployment of force, is often used against any move towards defining a human and ecosystem friendly environmental security.
Environmental security through the state
The discussion about environmental security, or what eventually became what we know as environmental security, began in the early 1970s. One such early work included that by Richard Falk titled "This Endangered Planet" (Falk 1971). His awareness about the environment is directed to both environmental degradation but also to the power implications between those who "have", and those who "have not" when competing for scarce resources. He notes: "Under world conditions of insufficient resources to satisfy total demand there is a natural tendency for those with less to seek a larger share: This tendency induces those with a larger share to organise their defences against those with less and to use their superiority to obtain still more" (Falk 1971). While pointing out the problems of inequality associated with scarcity, Falk highlights a central tenant of environmental security at the time, and which continues today: scarce resources must be secured for the purposes and interest of the state. Falk's purpose was in part to address the ways in which the environment could be used to exacerbate the already gross inequalities that existed between nations and peoples. But the issue regarding scare resources appeared to hold more sway amongst security theorists at the time, as evidenced by the oft-cited work by Ullman in "Redefining Security" (1983). In this work, security was both redefined as well as reified. Ullman argued that national security threats were more than those which the military could dispose of, and he gave particular focus towards the implications of environmental change and degradation upon national security. Many of the operational definitions of environmental security since then have not moved too far beyond the state focus, as demonstrated by the definition employed by the US government:
Environmental security is an element of regional and national security. It encompasses the mitigation and prevention of energy threats, including threats to sources and supply lines, and environmental risks and related stresses that directly contribute to political and economic instability or conflict in foreign countries or regions of importance to the United States. Moreover, it addresses selected energy, environmental, and related national security concerns that pose a direct conflict with United States foreign policy (U.S. Department of State, 2001).
In fact, oneofthecriticismswagedagainstthenotionofenvironmentalsecurity is that it is largely a tool of the state - a concept so readily employed by the U.S. military, and potentially used as a justification for the continued exploitation of resources to "secure" the North's consumerist lifestyle, is not a concept that reflects the concerns of those interested in the survival of the earth's varied and diverse ecosystems (Dalby, 1997). The end result is a mindset that those with fewer resources could constitute a threat to those with the most.
Strengthening the state-focus: Energy Security
Energy security both broadens and reifies the traditional security agenda. It broadens it by including energy as a fundamental security "referent" or object of security, beyond defending strictly the territory of the nation when and if it is threatened. Instead, the survival of the state is expanded to include energy as a fundamental and explicit element of that which now, if not before, needs to be protected to ensure state survival. Thus, energy security is about securing energy for the state (Barnett 2001). Energy has become so fundamentally linked to state security now that energy is easily mentioned without question when referring to the security and defence of a state: Russia's "comeback" (or attempt) to the world stage as a major military power is in part attributed to its capacity and power in the energy sector (Blank, 2008?).
Energy security was invoked during World War I where Winston Churchill already recognized the importance and link of energy to national security and strategy (Yergin 2006). Its continued relevance was made very clear during the oil crisis of 1973 which illustrated the extent to which states were vulnerable both economically and politically (maintaining lifestyles for domestic population as well as ensuring sufficient energy supply behind any necessary deployment of force), but was relevant even before then during the Second World War (Barnett 2001). Today, threats emminate from both human and "natural" sources, from the likes of terrorists threatening the world economy by attacking energy supplies, to natural disasters like hurricanes Katrina and Rita which created an "energy shock" by disrupting distribution of oil, natural gas and electricity (Yergin 2006). Energy security has been taken up as a "cause" by the likes of traditional military alliances such as NAT0, which has taken on the mantle of protector of energy security for its allies. NAT0's role in energy security has been addressed in two Summit declarations thus far (Riga 2006 and Bucharest 2008) with plans to include the theme at the 2009 summit as well (NAT0 2009) . Energy security reflects the initial concerns of environmental security and the need to secure resources for the state. In this way, the links between energy security and "traditional" or a state-based form of environmental security are very close.
Global/regional focus on environmental security
As a state-based environmental security perspective developed, so too did a more global, shared response. It was argued that sovereign entities such as states lacked the capacity to
care for common goods such as air, water and natural resources (Hough 2008). This "Tragedy of the Commons" type thinking became common during the 1970s, and could be seen in agreed-upon principles such as the "Common Heritage of Mankind" as a part of the Third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III) (ibid). Issues such as acid rain, tropical rain forest depletion, and desertification rose in importance on the political agenda, and were beginning to be perceived as global threats. Discussions about global environmental threats (and indirectly, security) took place at the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in 1972 (Buzan, et.al; 1998). The term environmental security was popularized in the Brundtland Commission report Our Common Future (Brundtland Commission,1987). At that time the term still largely reflected state-based security definitions, in that linkages were made between the environment and large scale warfare, particularly nuclear war. It also highlighted the extent of environmental degradation and devastation that would be and is caused due to other weapons of mass destruction, and the arms "culture" (ibid).
The momentum following the Brundtland report more so stumbled along rather than increased over time, but the global, common issues raised there have managed to "hang in there". The oil crisis of the 1970s certainly increased the awareness of global dependence upon resources, which at the same time illicited state-based responses for protection of their own resources. However, these responses were happening in concert with the "sustainable development" discourse fronted by the Brundtland commission, which argued for the possibility of continued economic prosperity on the basis of natural resources, but in a managed and "sustainable" way. Sustainable development provided a more positive outlook than a "limits to growth" perspective on the global dependence upon natural resources (Hough 2008). But it required cooperation between states to accomplish this. The UN Conference on the Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro (1992) attempted to make such cooperation more concrete, including dividing responsibilities between Northern and Southern states regarding environmental protection, introducing the "precautionary principle", and creating "Agenda 21" as a program of action towards environmental protection (ibid). This conference was followed by the World Summit on Sustainable Development 10 years (2002) later in Johannesburg, where discussions continued on biodiversity and global warming, but with little concrete action.
Although global efforts continue in fits and starts, they DO continue, both at the global/international level as well as at regional levels. The 2003 European Security Strategy briefly acknowledges the possible impacts of climate change, or global warming, upon the competition (and conflict) over scarce resources, namely water (European Security Strategy 2003). However the impact of climate change had little to do with Europe itself according to this document, as it is secure, free, and prosperous as never before (ibid). The European Commission, as the executive body of the European Union, does not explicitly equate environmental issues with security, preferring sustainable development as the important and overriding concept (European Commission, 2006a). However, the rhetoric they employ fits well into a environmental and human security framework:
Poverty is closely linked to environmental issues. The poorest people are the most dependent on natural resources for survival, which they are often forced to over-exploit. They are also the worst affected by a degraded environment...The EU will encourage the development of production and consumption methods that limit the harmful consequences of growth for the environment. It will support the inclusion of environmental considerations in poverty reduction and equivalent development strategies (European Commission, 2006a).
The "overlap" in security referents is clear here, whereby the ecological as well as human impacts are considered. People are identified as in threat and/or vulnerable to a degrading environment, and highly dependent upon a degrading exploitation of natural resources in which to survive.
The view that an environmental security perspective was indeed important was raised at the 2004 Hague Conference on Environment, Security and Sustainable Development (Spencer, 2004). Peiter van Geel, State Secretary for Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment for the Netherlands, claimed that it was very important to link the environment to security, particularly as global actors continue to fail to meet the challenges of increasing ecological problems, particularly climate change (Spencer, 2004). The conference participants expressed the overall belief that the international community needs to greatly expand its knowledge on the causal factors of conflict, including:
the erosion of natural resource-based livelihoods, lack of incentives for sustainable development, excessive resource dependence, corruption, proliferation of small arms and light weapons, lack of economic opportunities, the accelerated population shift from rural to urban areas and the related dispossessed young men who become the ready recruits of militias and terrorism in newly expanded urban centres, and as well, the manipulation of perceptions of injustice by "conflict entrepreneurs" in order to seize power and resources (ibid; 3).
Increasing awareness about these factors requires a broader security perspective than that which traditional security offers. The causal factors identified by the 2004 Hague Conference have equally, if not more, to do with human security as they do with state security. As well, these factors are not only relevant to people living outside of Europe - many Europeans will face and are even now facing the erosion of natural-resource based livelihoods, lack of economic opportunities, accelerated population shifts, and dispossessed young men (particularly those in more rural and remote locations AHDR, 2004). Thus, like many other concepts, "environmental security" is in flux, and slowly changing to reflect a greater concern for both global ecosystems and the humans that depend upon them.
Humans, human security and the environment:
Ecological security:
Ecological security recognizes and prioritizes the protection of the biosphere, or the sum of all global ecosystems, including human and non-human life forms alike (Dalby 2002).
In many respects ecological security includes human security, insofar as human beings are part and parcel of the ecosystems being considered. The connection cannot however be assumed to be an uncontested one. Although human well-being is intrinsically connected to the well-being of the biosphere, some human value systems may not place the biosphere within their security priorities, as illustrated in the conflict between economic and environmental security in the above section. As well, some ecologists claim that the subject of ecology and study of ecosystems deals with non-human ecosystems: "it is taken as the field study of natural organisms under natural conditions, with natural taken to mean non-human" (Lowe, Whitman et al. 2009). The separation of humans from ecology means that "ecological security" cannot exist, as "security" is a human value, and human systems are thus far the only ones engaged in debates about what values will be reflected within conceptions of security. Ecological security might necessitate that human beings no longer interact with ecosystems in the name of preserving them, but this nevertheless requires engagement between human and non-human systems. It also requires engagement between social and natural sciences to determine what these interactions consist of (Tanentzap, Bazely et al. 2009).
However, not only are the linkages between humans and other species within and between ecosystems clear empirically (humans are but one, albeit a dominant, species), but the securitization of the biosphere with no acknowledgement of the important relationship of humans to global ecosystems has little to no potential for action as it is human beings at all levels (individuals, communities, states and global community) who need to become engaged; this requires that human value systems include ecosystems. Thus, ecological security consists of understanding and responding to the following relationships (modified from (Pirages 2005):
1. between human systems and the biosphere's capacity to produce the resources exploited by those systems;
2. between different and often unequal human systems (between elites and non-elites, between global North and South);
3. between human systems and non-human systems as part of the biosphere;
4. between human systems and pathogenic microorganisms.
Ecological security can be viewed as an "attempt to go beyond knee-jerk reactions to disasters or imminent disasters" (Hough 2008). Social, economic, political and cultural transformations no longer can be considered as separate or distinct from ecological or biospheric developments. The developments of the social impacts the ecological, and vice versa. Ecological security demands an understanding between these social and natural systems as holistic units, thus enabling a greater capacity for humans (from individuals to global communities) to manage potential threats.
Climate security
The term "climate security" is appearing more frequently, if not yet in scholarly texts, than at least at conference settings and policy venues (Climate Congress, Copenhagen March
2009). As such, no agreed upon definitions exist for the term "climate security", but it is largely invoked in the context of climate change. Because it is becoming a term more often seen within the broader field of environmental security, it is necessary to place this approach in relation to the other environmental approaches, including ecological and energy security. Climate security specifically addresses the impacts and consequences of climate change upon human systems, and the identification, mitigation, and possible prevention of acute or severe impacts of the one upon the other. Given the clear impacts of human activity upon the climate and upon climate change itself, the mitigation and prevention of climate change impacts must necessarily include examining human activity itself and changing it, where need be.
Climate security could be considered a "part" of ecological security in that the biosphere includes the atmosphere. It is useful to therefore note the interconnectedness of these two concepts (ecological and climate security), as well as allow climate security it's own space in the security discourse as it is a clear reflection of an increasing role in the values within human social systems. A focus on climate security does not necessarily detract from ecological security as a whole, but supports the increasing value placed on the biosphere. As the empirical evidence of the actual and potential impacts of climate change are mounting and becoming more and more commonly understood and/or discussed, the values of at least some human systems are changing as a result, articulating if not taking greater responsibility for human impacts upon the climate. These changes are not occurring "across the board" amongst human systems as there is continued debate as to the effects and causes of climate change. But the articulation of "climate security" demonstrates the development of a set of values that is more ecologically sensitive than environmental security has been before, and has the potential to drive greater action towards mitigation and prevention of acute or severe impacts of climate change.
Future of environmental security
There are two complementary ways in which to strengthen the non-state based understanding of environmental security.. The first is by examining environmental security in relation to human security, and the second is embedding environmental security with a stronger ecological security orientation (as Barnett suggests, 2001). By so doing, environmental security can move away from its state-based roots (defending a destructive modern way of life, propagating environmentally destructive activities through traditional security mechanisms such as the military, exacerbating the divide between global North and South) and reflect both the mounting concerns about environmental degradation, as well as emphasize the importance of human relationships to the environment. Both approaches are necessary to a more effective understanding of environmental security - ecological security stresses the interconnectedness of all elements within a system, both how they impact as well as are impacted by the system. Humans, however, are not the particular or central concern
however. The ecological approach includes humans as one of many elements in the system, whereas the human security approach examines the impacts of the system upon humans (identified as threats). A "widened" environmental security approach brings the ecological and the human together: " . . . reformulate environmental security in terms of human security and peace, and drawing on the insights of ecological security" (Barnett, 2001: 122). Humans are not only threatened by environmental threats, but cause them as well.
Global attempts to both speak to environmental as well as human security issues but has done so in fits and starts, heavily laden with political rhetoric with little action behind it. That environmental security is peripheral to the overall human security agenda is exemplified by the recent report "A Human Security Doctrine for Europe" (Glasius and Kaldor, 2006). Despite acknowledging that the new EU constitution explicitly stated that the EU would contribute to "peace, security, the sustainable development of the earth . . ." (ibid: 331), as well as that the perception of threats has expanded to include environmental security risks (ibid: 311), no attention is paid to environmental security whatsoever within this document.
The reasons for this might be many, but two come particularly to mind; the prioritisation of large scale violence over "other" security issues, and the questionable validity of the environment as a security referent. The recognition of the environment as a potential security "sector" gained some support when this theme appeared in Buzan, Waver, and de Wilde's Security: A New Framework for Analysis (1998). The authors made clear however that they were not necessarily endorsing the securitization of the environment, but were merely recognizing that there were some actors that were attempting to do so. The difficulties in securitizing the environment (where securitization is recognized as the articulation and validation of a security threat) is the extent to which "urgent" action is required; it is argued that environmental problems are usually, and more effectively, handled at the level of politicization or normal politics (ibid).
According to an ecologically-informed view of environmental security, human beings, from individuals up to the global community are a part of the system; they impact as well as are impacted by, the system and any changes. Changes are already underway, and it is naive and complacent to think that a human security doctrine for Europe (for example) would not include environmental security, particularly an ecological/human security approach. Climate change is precisely one of those threats that warrants inclusion in Europe's human security doctrine, which also directly aims at the environmental security of Europe as well as outside of it.
References
1. Barnett, J. (2001). The Meaning of Environmental Security: Ecological Politics and Policy in the New Security Era. London, Zed Books.
2. Burgess, P., with G. Hoogensen, et.al (2007). Promoting Human Security: Ethical, Normative and Educational Frameworks in Western Europe. Paris, UNESCO.
3. Dalby, S. (2002). Security and Ecology in the Age of Globalization. The Environmental Change and Security Project Report 95-108.
4. Durant, R. F. (2007). The Greening of the US Military: Environmental Policy, National Security, and Organizational Change. Washington DC, Georgetown University Press.
5. European Security Strategy (2003). A Secure Europe in a Better World. Brussels, Council of the European Union.
6. Falk, R. (1971). This Endangered Planet: Prospects and Proposals for Human Survival. New York, Random House.
7. Hoogensen, G. (2005). "Gender, Identity, and Human Security: Can we learn something from the case of women terrorists?" Canadian Foreign Policy12(1): 119-140.
8. Hoogensen, G. (2005). International Relations, Security and Jeremy Bentham. London, New York, Routledge.
9. Hoogensen Gj0rv, G. (2012). "Security by any other name: negative security, positive security and a multi-actor security approach." Review of International Studies.
10. Hough, P. (2008). Understanding Global Security. London, Routledge.
11. Lowe, P., G. Whitman and J. Phillipson (2009). "Ecology and the social sciences." Journal of Applied Ecology46: 297-305.
12. NATO. (2009, 05 April 2009). "NATO's role in energy security." Retrieved 05 April 2009, from http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49208.htm?selectedLocale=en.
13. Pirages, D. (2005). From Limits to Growth to Ecological Security. From Resource Scarcity to Ecological Security: Exploring New Limits to Growth. D. Pirages and K. Cousins. Cambridge MA, MIT Press: 1-19.
14. Rothschild, E. (1995). "What is Security?" Daedalus124(3): 53-98.
15. Tanentzap, A. J., D. R. Bazely, P. A. Williams and G. Hoogensen (2009). "A Human Security Framework for the Management of Invasive Nonindigenous Plants." Invasive Plant Science and Managementforthcoming.
16. Yergin, D. (2006). "Ensuring Energy Security." Foreign Affairs85(2): 69-82.
