America's Defense Monitor Interview with

Geoffrey Dabelko, Director, Environmental Change and Security Project,

The Woodrow Wilson Center

MR. DABELKO: Well, as we -- as we come close to the turn of the century, security is a contested term that's evolving a lot of different directions. With the end of the cold war we have the environment rising as a priority, not that environmental degradation, depletion, population growth were not problems before, but we have more of an opportunity to talk about them and raise them in terms of priority and even consider them potential security issues. And so, as there's the space for that discussion, it's been a fairly raging debate as to how the environment should be integrated into the notions of security, whether that makes sense as we redefine our notions, whether the tools, which are the proper tools to use to pursue some sense of security that goes beyond our traditional military, protect the state and protect territory sense of security.

INTERVIEWER: How is the issue of environmental change become intertwined with the traditional notion of a nation's security or safety?

MR. DABELKO: Uh huh. Um, I think it's not only -- the environment has not only been considered part of a nation's security but part of what's a really interesting question is it's at the level of the state and the nation, but it's also at the level of the community and the individual. And so part of the really interesting debate on what security should be and for whom -- who's being secured? Perhaps -- and part of what's interesting about the evolution of environment and security is should we be talking about human security at the level of the individual and not just at the level of the state and national security? Because the environment as opposed to state to state approaches, the environment ignores political boundaries. Coal burning in the Midwest has acid rain implications for Canada across the border. That acid participation is not going to pay attention to national boundaries. And so the logic of international environmental problems, challenges in many ways the logic of the state to state security where one state's security is at the cost of another instead of perhaps the conflict and cooperation, what is most useful is cooperation. And so that's a fundamental challenge to our notions of security.

INTERVIEWER: When we talk about these environmental changes or environmental problems.....what are some examples? What are we really talking about here?

MR. DABELKO: There are kinds -- the kinds of environmental and population growth issues that are at the center of the debate about environment and security range from the global where people are talking about the impact of climate change and global warming and perhaps you would experience sea level rise that would perhaps displace millions of people. And when they move, that has big impact on the environment that they're moving from -- moving to, but also a new political situation, especially if they cross boundaries or come from a rural area to a city. But at the local level, it could be an issue of deforestation and so there's no wood that's available for fuel, um, for a fire, to, to, to heat food, prepare food. Um, fresh water, both its availability and quantity and also the quality of it -- that it gets tied into issues of waste management in cities. I mean, there just aren't proper sewers which of course creates problems for disease. And so you can go down from the local community level all the way up to the global level with many regional issues in between that potentially create problems that have to be addressed.

INTERVIEWER: What are the main sources of environmental scarcity?

MR. DABELKO: The sources of environmental degradation depletion are many. You have on the one side, increased levels of consumption. So, in developed countries, for example, through the process of industrialization, it's allowed us to process more -- more efficiently but process more materials. And so we consume more. On the other side of the coin and equally important, is the growth in numbers of people. And so population growth largely going on in developing countries nowadays. But in that sense, it's more people for the same size pie and even a shrinking pie because we've depleted resources many of which cannot be easily replaced. They may be renewable, but they are at a rate that is perhaps so slow that it's effectively non-renewable.

INTERVIEWER: Does environmental scarcity cause conflict?

MR. DABELKO: It's a matter of great debate as to whether and what role the environment might play in causing conflict. Some people argue that the environment degradation and depletion of resources, when coupled with population growth, can be one among many factors that can contribute and in fact contribute to other issues such as ethnic tensions, such as relative wealth between one or another group within a society. That in turn might contribute to conflict. And so it's not that the environment causes conflict, but the environment may be one a group of political, economic and social variables that leads to conflict.

INTERVIEWER: What are the two groups that we divide resources into and why do we divide them that way -- renewable and non-renewable?

MR. DABELKO: Well -- there are non-renewable resources and renewable resources. And the non-renewable, we typically think of oil straight away. And so that has -- non-renewable resources such as oil have been the source of conflict as we have seen over time, especially in the Middle East. Renewable resources are often actually what has been the focus of the environmental security environment and conflict debates. They tend to be or are considered forestry -- so deforestation issues. Fish stocks -- the depletion of the fish stocks. I mean, it wasn't violent conflict, but last summer we had the Canadians and the Spanish squaring off over fishing. And so it's a new political issue in that sense if not military issue that has to be addressed. It can go -- water is often in that category in that it can be cleaned and therefore considered renewable. So, there are a lot of different renewable resource issues that are at the center of this environment and conflict, uh debate.

There have been a number of renewable resources that have been identified as potentially a problem in the environment and could -- causing conflict. One is forest resources and the loss of forest resources as that relates to the amount of arable land that's available. The second would be fish, and over fishing. And depletion of fish stocks which is a large source of nutrients for many -- for millions and millions of people in the world. Um, fresh water, that's both clean and enough of it is also considered at the center of the renewable resources that may be too scarce or too polluted in terms that might then play a role and caus a conflict.

INTERVIEWER: Can environmental problems figure as causes of conflict?

MR. DABELKO: The question of can environmental -- environmental resources be at the center of conflict is a highly contested one. Oftentimes we don't find people going to war over the conflicts themselves, but we see a scarcity or a depletion of those resources making other existing lines of tension between two parties much worse and might be something that pushes them over the edge in combination with other -- other different problems -- political, economic, social problems might come together to make a mix that then can lead and spill over into political instability or violence.

INTERVIEWER: You mentioned there was a push-pull factor -- could you sort of go into that a little bit and explain what you mean on that?

MR. DABELKO: Sure. Sure. Environmental degradation is often considered in the question of why people move and migration; both across borders but also within states. There are commonly --- the causes for people to move are commonly divided between push factors and pull factors. And so a push factor might be if you lived near the Chernobyl Nuclear Plant and had an explosion. You're pushed out of the area. So, you're fleeing radioactivity. A pull factor may be, you know, your farm is not producing as much as it used to. You have a couple more kids. And there perhaps is some better land if you move. And so that's a pull factor for economic gain. And so the question is what is the balance and the mix of both push and pull factors in terms of what causes people to move. In this environment and security debate, a lot of what people are looking at is the combination where the environment might provide a push along with an economic pull where people get up and move, and then create a new situation in another state where there's political instability because it's changed the balance of the population.

INTERVIEWER: How do we really go about defining that, especially in these times when things have really changed since the end of the cold war?

MR. DABELKO: Well, the definition of security is really kind of depends who you ask, right? I mean it means something different to -- to each person that you ask. When looking at the environment and the new notions of security, you see it challenging the definition of security fundamentally and saying, okay, these aren't necessarily new problems, but they're priorities that we can now really focus on and so does that mean we have to change our overall notion of what security is? Should we stop focusing on tanks facing one another and stop counting missiles and should we start trying to understand disease if we're interested in saving lives, and how best to spend money? So, it raises not only the conceptual notion of what is security, but also then questions regarding resources and priorities in the sense that in the United States we build our highway system by calling it the National Security Highway Act. We fund education by applying the security label. And so a big part of especially early on and the usage of environmental security, was an attempt by certain people who thought the environmental problem was a great priority to bring additional resources to the issue. What -- as we redefine security now and go into the next century, it's also a question of who's going to provide the security. Which institutions are going to do that? Is it going to be the military or is it perhaps going to be the -- the more traditional diplomatic channels or are there going to be new actors in providing security that might be like the Environmental Protection Agency or the U.S. Agency for International Development? These institutions, these offices, these departments that are aimed at things like the health of a population, ensuring access to fresh water. These are then the questions that when you go from your conceptual notion to security, it comes down the line as to -- then has implications for who institutes and who provides the security.

INTERVIEWER: How much of these environmental issues have been sort of traditional root causes of war in the past and conflict in the past?

MR. DABELKO: Uh huh. The historical record of the environment in causing conflict is one that is -- is often cited and probably often abused. Water has always been at issue, and it's the one where you even have biblical examples and such. And so in that sense, it's not necessarily a new phenomenon. But if we bring it up to today, what is new, is the level of environmental degradation depletion that we see. We're in totally new territory in terms of the numbers, strictly the numbers in population. I mean, popula - we're going to hit six billion people in the world within a few years. And that's just new territory. Now, we've been able to keep up with technological innovation. I mean, [Malthus] and the doom-sayers about running out of food because so many people have been proven wrong so some degree we should say. We should also remember how many millions of malnourished -- malnourished and sick people there are in the world today, even, not necessarily in the developed countries, but in developing countries. Um, but, so, it's a question that we're in new territory when it comes to what role the environment and population growth might play in terms of causing conflict instability. And so it's a new question.

INTERVIEWER: How would you go about explaining the concept of environmental security to someone who doesn't really follow security issues?

MR. DABELKO: Well, I -- I think you -- you'd have to break it down in a lot of different ways because a lot of people view it differently. And so, um, you could say, for example, that environment and its security and the linkages that are most important are the linkages between the potential role that the environment might play in causing political conflict in combination with other. You might say that environment security is cleaning up military institutions, cleaning up the military, so that they don't make as big a mess when they're preparing for war and conducting war. You might say that environment security should be something that focuses on the individual and human well-being and so that environment security is actually being secure in your environment as opposed to something like cleaning up the military. You could also consider environment security to be saying, we need to use our traditional security tools for the study of the environment and to try to address environmental problems. And so, there are multiple different ways. Some of them fit together and some of them are entirely different in terms of trying to understand the different ways that people link environment and security.

INTERVIEWER: How has the traditional security establishment reacted to the presence of environmental issues as a factor in defining security?

MR. DABELKO: The traditional security establishment has reacted to the environmental issue in many ways. Some have said this is a terrible idea to bring the environment into traditional security concerns. If we are off fighting fires or conducting environmental missions, then we're not training for what we really need to do in our primary mission and so that undercuts our preparedness to conduct war. I'm sorry. I can say it faster.

INTERVIEWER: How has the Pentagon and military reacted to the presence of environmental issues?

MR. DABELKO: Some people in the military have responded by saying that the environment has no place and the military has no role in addressing environmental issues. They say if we are not -- if we are fighting fires and doing environmental missions, we're not preparing for what we're supposed to do and it undercuts readiness. Others have said, uh, from a more tactical perspective, well, adapt a few environment missions and maybe then we will be able to keep our comparable levels of budget that we've been accustomed to, even though other potential threats might have declined and so one thinks we might have to lose [inaudible]. And others have taken it seriously and tried to integrate it into their planning in terms of trying to predict where they might have to send troops, where they might be called upon to take a roll. And so, as they list their different issues they need to track in a given country, they add the environment to that list. So, for example, they had to go to Haiti. If the military planners, then, can understand that rapid levels of deforestation and soil erosion play a big part in Haiti's economic troubles, and political troubles, then they have a better understanding of why they had to go in there and why this was a case of instability. They have a better picture of what's going on.

INTERVIEWER: Can you give me some examples of how some of these na -- government agencies are getting involved and try -- and even helping define the term, environmental security?

MR. DABELKO: One of the most active traditional security institutions in the realm of the environment has been the intelligence communities. They've done a number of things. One has been to use their satellites to monitor environmental -- international environmental treaties. So there's an international environmental treaty on drift net fishing, these mile-wide drift nets that kind of go along and catch everything that are illegal. While it's very hard to have coverage of these massive oceans, and so through intelligence community assets, they've been able to monitor when people are doing drift nets. The intelligence community both from civilian and defense have also tried to predict better where there will be conflict and instability. And so they've integrated the environment into their models to predict insecurity and instability and so it's an additional thing that they look at when they're trying to plan and scope out the future. They've also, again, the intelligence community has started an ongoing process of binging in outside scientists, giving them top secret clearances, and letting them use the intelligence community satellites and various intelligence gathering platforms to study the environment. And so that's a real tangible way the intelligence community is playing a role in the study of the environment.

INTERVIEWER: Just to give people an idea of what groups are involved in environment and security issues?

MR. DABELKO: Sure. Well, the line of different institutions, groups, both in government and out of government that are playing an active role in environment and security. You have the Defense Department and Intelligence Community that has large budgets and large numbers of people working on the issue. You have in the diplomatic community, the State Department has set up hubs out at various different embassies around the world to be centers for environment gathering information, sending it back to Washington. You have at the Department of Energy, um, people working especially with energy issues, but on a broad range of issues in the Baltic Sea and cooperating in the Arctic Sea and such. And in fact, you even have groups withing the government working together that didn't formerly. The Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Defense Department have formally signed a memorandum of understanding that they'll cooperate to pursue environmental security. But at the same time, some of the non-traditional foreign policy and non-traditional security policy institutions within the government are working on these issues: the Environmental Protection Agency, for example, but especially, the U.S. Agency for International Development with all of our development assistance programs. If you are looking at security as something where human well-being is part of the security question, then programs like improving reproductive health, immunization programs, the on-the-ground grass roots development projects, then that's something that they're working on. In hand with USAID is often environmental and population non-governmental organizations. They sometimes use the term environmental security, sometimes they call it sustainable development. But they're working on some of the same issues that at least some people are classifying under an environmental security term.

INTERVIEWER: You mentioned that there's some resistance by both traditional security experts and also, you know, diehard environmentalists. Could you briefly describe the two different viewpoints?

MR. DABELKO: Yeah. The opposition, the people who oppose the notion of linking environment and security come from really two separate camps. One from the traditional security military side of things will make the argument that it's an inappropriate mission for the military because it takes time away and resources away from their primary mission which is war fighting. And so if they are asked to conduct environmental missions, then it undercuts their readiness. It's also, they see it as not as important a priority as the imminent use of force and the threat. From the other side, the environmentalists also -- some -- also oppose the notion of linking environment and security. And they make an argument that says, listen, you're not going to green security, the notion or the institution, but you're going to militarize the environment or you're going to securit-ize the environment. And so, as much as the environment requires cooperation to successfully address, the environmentalists make the case that security -- [blank in tape]

INTERVIEWER: And diehard environmentalists?

MR. DABELKO: Okay. On the other side, the environmentalists, those who oppose the linking of environment and security together say that you're not going to green security, you're going to militarize the environment, securities the environment, and that the tools at hand for the security community are inappropriate and mismatched for addressing environmental problems. They don't work because they are conflictual and they are using force and conflict where environmental problems require cooperation. And so they say they're mismatched.

INTERVIEWER: What the different methods that these institutions bring to the environment and security field?

MR. DABELKO: Okay. Sure. Um, part of the reason that there are so many definitions of environmental security and understandings of environmental security is because different groups, different organizations come to the issues from very different perspectives. They come with very different tool boxes in hand and so what they've been used to doing is what, of course, they -- perspective that they bring to the question. And so if you're the Defense Department, your tools are the tools of military. And so you see a role in an environment. If you have a ship that's going out, you can take various measurements of ocean sea temperatures. And so that's where you -- the tool that you can bring to bear on the environment. If you're the Environmental Protection Agency, you have a whole new set of tools and you look at the environment very differently. If you're the Agency for International Development, again, a different perspective. You're focusing on the individual and human well being and health. So, it really matters what your tool box is and your prior perspective on the issue when you come to address environmental security.

INTERVIEWER: Many Americans are skeptical about the need for foreign aid. Why is it important to think about foreign aid for countries struggling environmental and population issues?

MR. DABELKO: Well, sometimes it is hard to see how foreign aid is relevant to people in the United States when they're addressing issues that are far, far away. But in the realm of the environment and population, I think there are a lot of very clear linkages. One -- environmental problems, many of them, ignore political boundaries and so there are things that can migrate or come -- and so if it's global warming, it's obviously a global phenomenon or ozone depletion, it's a global phenomenon even if the origin of the problem is somewhere else. But even other issues such as deforestation in a country on the other side of the world -- people are moving into new areas, say, of a tropical forest, coming in contact with diseases that humans hadn't had contact with. Now, because, for example, our transportation network is so developed, you can get on a plane and move these diseases into areas that were no longer -- or had no exposure to it before. Another good example is, say, us going somewhere else. For example, now, kids head down to Costa Rica for spring break. You take a week in the tropical rain forest and you pick up some things that you're not used to, some microorganisms that you're not have had a lot of contact with, and you bring it home and you're in the classroom a week later, and then you share it with your friends and suddenly you can understand why trends in population or deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon are very relevant for you sitting in the classroom here in the U.S.

INTERVIEWER: What is the environmental change and security project and what is it all about?

MR. DABELKO: Okay. The environmental change and security project is housed here at the Woodrow Wilson Center. We have the explicit goal of getting together these different groups, these different perspectives in the room to talk about how they see environment, population and security linkages. So, we're trying to be an information clearing house on these topics, but also to get people in the room so that they can at least understand where other people are coming from in terms of how they link these issues and in terms of how they approach and address them with their different -- with their different policy tools. We're also trying to bring academic work into the policy realm, trying to bridge that gap and there's often a gap. And so we try to have these different scholarly and practitioner communities talk about what it means to link the environment to security.

INTERVIEWER: Is the notion of the environmental and security -- is this solely an American idea or are other countries involved in these issues?

MR. DABELKO: Yeah. It' interesting because environment security is oftentimes now associated as a purely American U.S. phenomenon and concern, but interestingly a lot of the original and earliest research on say, the environment and conflict, went on abroad, went on in Europe, went on in Canada where, in fact, the Peace Research Community tried to make these linkages. But today, where you do find the most policy attention to the term environment security is in the United States. Less so, but in Europe. And even very, very little in developing countries. They're concerned about some of the same issues, many of the same issues, but they're not putting it in environmental security terms.