the human dimensions of environmental insecurity… · that poverty and weak institutions of...

59NAJAM, PAGES 59-73

In the last half-century, the term “security”was primarily a matter of states and theirmilitary alliances and was principally

applied to the “security” of borders andinstitutions from outside threats. The bipolarnature of world dynamics that prevailedduring the period intensified the emphasison external threats. Although this definitionof security is considered minimalist by someanalysts, many others accept it as valid:military threats to secur ity are easilyidentifiable and carry clear and often extremeconsequences.

In contrast, non-military threats withinnations—such as poverty, social vulnerability,or ecological resiliency—are generally notperceived as concrete and tangible. Yet one

could argue that the wrong end of a smoke-stack can be as much of a security concern tohumans as the barrel of a gun. A keyconceptual difference between the twoapproaches is that the traditional definitionof security presupposes that threats arisingfrom outside the state are more dangerous tothe state than threats that arise within it.

Recent debates on whether and how theconcept of security might be expandedbeyond issues of geo-polity, internationalpower-balance, military strategy, and statecrafthave been both intense and rich (Galtung,1982; Ullman, 1983; Mathews, 1989; Walt,1991; Dalby, 1992; and Buzan, 1991). Onestrand of this debate on non-traditionalsecurity issues focuses on connections between

THE HUMAN DIMENSIONS OFTHE HUMAN DIMENSIONS OFTHE HUMAN DIMENSIONS OFTHE HUMAN DIMENSIONS OFTHE HUMAN DIMENSIONS OFENVIRONMENTENVIRONMENTENVIRONMENTENVIRONMENTENVIRONMENTAL INSECURITYAL INSECURITYAL INSECURITYAL INSECURITYAL INSECURITY:::::SOME INSIGHTS FROM SOUTH ASIASOME INSIGHTS FROM SOUTH ASIASOME INSIGHTS FROM SOUTH ASIASOME INSIGHTS FROM SOUTH ASIASOME INSIGHTS FROM SOUTH ASIA

By Adil NajamAdil NajamAdil NajamAdil NajamAdil Najam

AbstractAbstractAbstractAbstractAbstract

This article presents the key insights that emerge from a regional research project thatexplored environment and security links in the context of South Asia. The projectresulted in the recently published volume Environment, Development and Human Security:Perspectives from South Asia (Najam, 2003). This article focuses on what the South Asianexperience can contribute to the larger literature on environment and security and,more particularly, to the literature on human security and sustainable development. Itargues that chronic and structural impoverishment—rather than resource scarcity alone—forges the connection between environmental degradation and conflict. It also suggeststhat poverty and weak institutions of governance are the more immediate triggers ofenvironmental insecurity. As such, analyses of environment and security need to focusmore at societal levels and on evidence of social disruption, even where that disruptionmight not entail violent conflict.

In focusing on South Asia as a region, the article reaches five general conclusions. First,for developing countries in general and South Asia in particular, environment and securityare best conceptualized within the context of sustainable development. Second, thechallenge of environment and security in South Asia is principally a challenge at thedomestic level; but it is a challenge common to the region. Third, the challenge ofenvironment and security in South Asia is, at its core, not only a problem of resourceendowments or geography but also a problem of institutions and governance. Fourth,while the prospects of interstate violence in South Asia over environmental issues areslim, the region’s history of distrust and dispute suggests that environmental differencescan add to existing tensions and apprehensions and perpetuate the general sense ofinsecurity that pervades interstate relations in the region. Fifth, there is a small potentialfor a new generation of security relations in the region—relations emerging around thenexus of environment and security and based on the principles of mutual trust, harmony,and cooperation rather than on legacies of distrust and dispute.

ECSP REPORT · ISSUE 9 · 200360

environment and security. Scholarly discoursein this area has been prolific, though notalways conclusive (Westing, 1988; Gleick,1991; Libiszewski, 1992; Myers, 1993; Levy,1995; Homer-Dixon, 1999; Deudney &Matthew, 1999; Dabelko, Lonergan &Matthew, 2000; and Diehl & Gleditsch, 2001).

This article presents the key insights thatemerge from a regional research project thatexplored environment and security links inthe context of South Asia (Najam, 2003).1

The article has neither the space nor themandate to present the detailed arguments,methodological modalities, or analyticalparticularities of the various cases; the goalhere is merely to highlight the key lessons ata conceptual level. Before presentingconclusions specific to South Asia, however,the article will introduce a conceptualframework for organizing environment-security discussions, a framework that emergedfrom the project.

This conceptual framework will befollowed by a discussion of the nexus betweenenvironment, development, and humansecurity in South Asia. South Asia and thenations that comprise it have already beenthe subject of earlier research on environmentand security (Myers, 1989, 1993; Hassan,1991, 1992; Islam, 1994; Gizewski & Homer-Dixon, 1998). Our focus here is on what theSouth Asian experience can contribute to thelarger literature on environment and security;or, to be more precise, on sustainabledevelopment and human security. What aresome of the key regional lessons that can bedrawn for South Asia as a whole? The articlewill focus particularly on the currentlyemerging interest in looking at environmentand security issues from the perspective ofhuman security and embedding those issueswithin the concept of sustainable development.

Broadening the Base:Broadening the Base:Broadening the Base:Broadening the Base:Broadening the Base:Focusing on Human SecurityFocusing on Human SecurityFocusing on Human SecurityFocusing on Human SecurityFocusing on Human Security

The literature on environment andsecurity has evolved over the years: from anearly focus on incorporating environmentaland related concerns into the definition of“secur ity” to a new focus on howenvironmental change can be a cause oramplifier of violent conflict. An emergingtrend within this evolution has been a movetoward greater emphasis on the concept ofhuman security (Dabelko, Lonergan, &Matthew, 2000; Elliott, 2001).

Human security is not in opposition tothe earlier trends of redefining security or ofmapping the environmental roots of violentconflict. In fact, it is an outgrowth of thesetrends. Indeed, many early attempts tobroaden the definition of “security” usedlanguage very similar to that found in today’sdiscussions on “human security.” For example,consider the following definition fromNorman Myers’ Ultimate Security:

… security applies most at the level ofthe individual citizen. It amounts tohuman well-being: not only protectionfrom harm and injury but access towater, food, shelter, health, employment,and other basic requisites that are thedue of every person on Earth. It is thecollectivity of these citizen needs—overall safety and quality of life—thatshould figure prominently in the nation’sview of security (Myers, 1993, page 31).

Those analysts who have focused onexplicating the environmental causes ofviolent conflict have also brought the debatecloser to the notion of human security—mostnoticeably by focusing on intrastate (and often

About the AuthorAbout the AuthorAbout the AuthorAbout the AuthorAbout the Author

Adil Najam is an associate professor of international negotiation and diplomacy at theFletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University. He holds a Ph.D. and twomaster’s degrees from MIT and has published widely on international negotiation,environmental policy, nongovernmental organizations, international trade, global governance,and human development. He is co-author of Civic Entrepreneurship: Civil Society Perspectiveson Sustainable Development (Gandhara Academy Press, 2002) and editor of Environment,Development and Human Security: Perspectives from South Asia (University Press of America,2003), on which this article is based.


local) insecurities. In sum, they have eachpushed the debate towards

the concept of “human secur ity”[which] offers a third perspective thatallows us to move beyond conventionalsecurity thinking, appreciates both thelocal and global dimensions of the manyinsecur ities exper ienced by realindividuals and groups, and identifiesuseful ways of linking security anddevelopment policies (Dabelko,Lonergan, & Matthew, 2000, page 48).

While the concept of human security hasearlier roots, its recent prominence comesfrom the 1994 Human Development Report(UNDP, 1994) of the United NationsDevelopment Programme (UNDP). Suhrke(1999, page 269) points out that, “whileoffering an imprecise and controversialdefinition, [UNDP’s starting point was]poverty rather than war—but ‘security’suggested an escape from both.” The currencyof the human security concept was furtheradvanced by the importance given to it inthe report of the Commission on GlobalGovernance (CGG, 1995). Both reports triedto shift the direction of the security discussionby focusing on issues of human life and humandignity rather than on weapons and territory.

Lorraine Elliott points out two dimensionsof the human security paradigm that are ofparticular relevance:

The first is that the concept of “humansecurity” provides an antidote to themore conventional focus on states,borders and territorial integrity. Theanswer to the question “security forwhom” is not the state but the individualand communities, which suggests thateven when a state is secure from externalthreats or internal instabilities, securityfor its people is not guaranteed.Protecting individuals and communitiesfrom the consequences of environmentaldecline (in this case) is therefore asecurity issue. The second dimension isthat human insecurity (which includesequity, gender, human r ights andidentity concerns) is a central factor insocial tensions and political instabilities

and conflicts that can…become a featureof state insecurity….If peoples andcommunities are insecure (economically,socially, politically, environmentally),state security can be fragile or uncertain.Environmental scarcity becomes adistributive equity problem rather thanone simply of market failure, externalitiesor zero-sum calculations about access toresources and environmental services(Elliott, 2001, page 449).

The primacy of state security is very

closely associated with the notion ofsovereignty. In its histor ic meaning,sovereignty implied the security of thesovereign, or the “Prince.” The emergenceof the democratic polity and the transfer ofprimacy from the “Prince” to the “Citizen”have implied a rather interesting twist for ourunderstanding of state secur ity. Withsovereignty now residing with the Citizenryrather than just the Prince, the notion ofsecurity must also be broadened to includethe security not only of the apparatus of thePrince (i.e., the state), but the everydaysurvival of the Citizen.

Such a conceptual schema does not denythe importance of state security, but it doeshighlight the need to broaden the concept. Itis no longer sufficient to define the securityof the state in terms of territoriality (i.e., thepurview of the Prince), because the state isno longer defined simply by the Prince orhis territoriality. Rather, state security mustnow also secure the well-being and livelihoodsof the Citizen, who is the ultimate custodianof sovereignty in the modern state.2

Indeed, as Elliott (2001, page 449)recognizes, the human security paradigm“turns the conventional security aphorism—secure states means secure people—on itshead.” Dabelko, Lonergan, and Matthew(2000, pages 48-49) add that the concept also“helps [us to] understand the complexinteractions that determine the relative

The wrong end of a smokestack can be as

much of a security concern to humans as the

barrel of a gun.


distribution of security and insecurity.” Theypoint out that, “under certain conditions, suchas war, the distribution and composition offorce may be the most important determinantof security and insecurity.” However, “inmany other situations, security and insecuritywill be most closely related to poverty orresource scarcity or social discrimination.”Importantly, this formulation leads to theconclusion that, “in these cases, traditionalsecurity institutions may have only a minorcontribution to make, or none at all.” Indeed,most of the chapters in Najam (2003) validatethis finding.

While Dabelko, Lonergan, and Matthewalso point out the similarity between the goalsof enhancing human security and sustainabledevelopment, they are likely to agree withAstri Suhrke (1999) that a key relationshipexists between the concepts of “humansecurity” and “human development.” For theHuman Development Report (UNDP, 1994,page 23) itself, “human development is abroader concept, defined as a process ofwidening the range of people’s choices.Human security means that people canexercise these choices safely and freely.” Suhrkealso argues that this relationship is moreimportant to understanding the concept ofhuman security:

There are two possible starting pointsfor exploring the substantive core of“human security.” One is in relation tothe security of states, the other in relationto human development….The majorcontribution of the 1994 UNDP reportwas its attempt to define human security

and human development, and sort outtheir relationship. The result, however,was confusingly circular. “Humansecurity” was presented both as an end-state of affairs—“safety from suchchronic threats as hunger, disease andrepression”—and a process in the senseof “protection from sudden and hurtfuldisruptions in the patterns of dailylife”….Human security was seen asessential for human development;without minimal stability and securityin daily life, there could be nodevelopment—human or otherwise. Butthe obverse was true as well. Long-termdevelopment that improves social andeconomic life would produce humansecurity, the UNDP report concluded.In this reasoning, there is no differencebetween development and humansecurity, or between process and end-state (Suhrke, 1999, pages 270-271).

In trying to place this emerging interestin human security within the context of theevolution of the environment and securitydebate, one might propose a simple heuristic.Simplifying for the purpose of exposition,Figure 1 conceives of an environment andsecurity “space” that is defined on one axisby the unit of analysis (ranging from state-centered to society-centered) and on the otherby sources of insecurity (ranging from violentconflict to social disruptions).

As we have already discussed, the earlyliterature on the subject was concernedpredominantly with state-centered discussions.While that literature did flirt with expanding

tcilfnoCtneloiV tcilfnoCtneloiV tcilfnoCtneloiV tcilfnoCtneloiV tcilfnoCtneloiV snoitpursiDlaicoS snoitpursiDlaicoS snoitpursiDlaicoS snoitpursiDlaicoS snoitpursiDlaicoS

deretneC-etatS deretneC-etatS deretneC-etatS deretneC-etatS deretneC-etatS nosucoFraWetatsretnI

nosucoFeruliaFlanoitutitsnI

deretneC-yteicoS deretneC-yteicoS deretneC-yteicoS deretneC-yteicoS deretneC-yteicoS nosucoFefirtSliviC

nosucoFytiruceSnamuH

Figure 1. Organizing the Environmentand Security Discussion

Source of InsecuritySource of InsecuritySource of InsecuritySource of InsecuritySource of Insecurity

Uni

t of A

naly

sis

Uni

t of A

naly

sis

Uni

t of A

naly

sis

Uni

t of A

naly

sis

Uni

t of A

naly

sis


the traditional discussion of insecurity to alsoinclude social disruptions, it was mostlyfocused on interstate conflict (since itsaudience was mostly restr icted to thetraditional security community). Hence, theemphasis of the environment and securityanalysis very often turned to discussions ofwhether or not interstate war was a likelyoutcome (e.g., Westing, 1988). The “secondwave” of the literature also emphasized theenvironment’s possible role in violent conflict,but made its focus of analysis more society-centered. Emphasis thus moved to whetherand to what extent environmental change wasa trigger for civil strife (e.g., Homer-Dixon,1999).

The new focus on human insecurity is alsosociety-centered, but is more concerned withsocial disruptions than with violent conflictas the principal source of insecurity (e.g.,Suhrke, 1999). One of the key benefits ofusing such a heuristic is that it begins to pointus towards other formalizations of theenvironment-security problematique that arenot yet dominant in the available literature.For example, Figure 1 points out theinsecurity that emerges from social disruptionsat the level of the state rather than the level ofsociety. Based on the conclusions reached byour chapter authors from South Asia (Najam,2003), one posits that such insecurity is mostlikely to manifest itself as institutional failureand to be best understood through a focus onthe mechanisms of societal governance.

While Figure 1 does not imply that anyone kind of insecurity is any more or any lessimportant, it clearly conveys that theenvironment-security problematique iscomposed of multiple forms of insecurity.Although the heuristic illustrated in Figure 1is exploratory and demands further empiricalvalidation, it provides us with one way toorganize and understand the discussion.Interestingly (but not surprisingly), theconclusions emerging from country-focusedas well as issue-focused studies from SouthAsia (Najam, 2003) lie very much in ther ight-hand half of Figure 1, andpredominantly in the bottom-right quarter.These conclusions very much emphasizeenvironment-related insecurities as manifestin social disruption rather than in outrightconflict. The categories of Figure 1 are of

course very broad, with hazy (althoughrecognizable) lines between them. The purposehere is not to pigeonhole scholarship, but tosuggest that the space within which

environmental insecurity manifests itself israther wide and broad and needs to berecognized in its entirety.

In order to begin understanding how andwhy issues of institutional failure and humaninsecur ity are more immediate to theconcerns of South Asians, let us quickly reviewwhat this region looks like.

South Asia in Context:South Asia in Context:South Asia in Context:South Asia in Context:South Asia in Context: Poverty as the Key Link Between Poverty as the Key Link Between Poverty as the Key Link Between Poverty as the Key Link Between Poverty as the Key Link Between

Environment and InsecurityEnvironment and InsecurityEnvironment and InsecurityEnvironment and InsecurityEnvironment and Insecurity

Home to nearly a fourth of all humanity,the South Asian subcontinent is a region wherehistories, geographies, and politics are trulyintertwined. Although we define the regionby membership in the South Asian Associationfor Regional Cooperation (SAARC)—whichwas formed in 1987 and includes Bangladesh,Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan andSri Lanka—the roots of the region’s distinctidentity predate the histories of any of thecountries that now constitute it. The regionhas been home to great indigenous empiresas well as prey to outside empires. It is a regionthat has been familiar with insecurities of allkinds throughout its r ich and torturedhistory—a familiarity that still holds truetoday. The 1997 Human Development in SouthAsia report (ul Haq, 1997) described SouthAsia as “the most deprived region” in theworld. Certain elements of the ratherdepressing picture of the region that the reportpainted are worth repeating here:3

• South Asia is the world’s poorest region,with a per capita GNP below even that ofsub-Saharan Africa (which is home to 40percent of the world’s poor and to over 500million people below the absolute poverty

South Asian countries are not only

significantly behind the world as a whole, but

also well behind developing countries as a

group.


line).• South Asia is the world’s most illiterate

region and home to nearly half of all theilliterates in the world. There are morechildren out of school in this region than inthe rest of the world combined. Two-thirdsof this wasted generation is female.

• South Asia is the region with the highestlevels of human deprivation: 260 millionpeople lack access to basic health facilities,337 million are without safe drinking water,830 million are without rudimentary

sanitation, and 400 million people gohungry every day.

South Asia may also be among the mostmilitarized regions in the world. India andPakistan have both declared themselves nuclearpowers. They have fought three full-scale warsand continue to have near-constant skirmisheson their borders, especially over the disputedregion of Kashmir. Given their monumentaldevelopment challenges, neither India ($15billion annually) nor Pakistan ($3.5 billionannually) can afford its massive militaryexpenditures. The other countries of theregion, while nowhere near as committed tolarge militaries, are also burdened by militaryexpenditures greater than they can afford,often because of internal threats.

Table 1 presents a brief profile of the fivelargest countries of the region. It is clear fromthe table that, for all the variables presented(except population and area), South Asiancountries are not only significantly behindthe world as a whole but also well behinddeveloping countries as a group (measuredhere as the average of all low- and medium-income countries). These variables are theroots of human insecurity in the region andend up having significant implications for theenvironment. Table 1 also highlights that,although there are important differenceswithin the region (for example, in terms ofeducation), the development profiles of the

region’s countries are uniform.Table 1 helps us make three important

points about South Asia. First, this is very mucha region that can be studied as a region—notonly in terms of its historical legacy, but alsoin terms of its current developmentalpredicament. Second, this is a region thatshould be studied: the region’s acutedevelopmental depravations point towards thepotential for equally acute and even violenthuman insecurity in the future. Third, giventhis context, it is not surprising that thepredominant South Asian concerns aboutenvironment and security are really abouthuman security.

This last point—stressing the connectionsamong environment, development, andhuman security—deserves more elaborationand becomes clear by reviewing the keyconclusions from various chapters in Najam(2003).4 The new research from South Asiavalidates and advances new nuances to twokey findings from the larger literature:

First, the research substantiates one of theconclusions that Dabelko, Lonergan, andMatthew (2000, page 56) reach in their majorenvironment-and-security literature review:“research on environment and security oftenstrengthens the conclusion that poverty is akey factor in causing tension, unrest and,eventually, conflict.” All across South Asia,poverty emerges as the key variable—bothfor defining environmental degradation andoutlining human insecurity. Importantly,poverty is both the causal motivator ofenvironmental stress as well as the mostimportant manifestation of human insecurity.Not only is poverty one of the key elementsexacerbating the causal chain that can leadfrom environmental degradation to violenceand insecurity—but research from South Asiasuggests that poverty can play a more centralrole in this chain of causality than much ofthe literature seems to acknowledge. Poverty,not scarcity, is dr iving environmentalinsecurity.

Contrary to the thrust of the mainstreamliterature—which struggles (and oftenunconvincingly) to express the environmentalproblematique in the language of state-centric“national” security (e.g. Mathews, 1989;Deudney, 1990; Homer-Dixon, 1991; Myers,1993; and Gleditsch, 1998)—this discourse

The critical difference is not resource

endowment but resource management,

which is directly related to institutions for

resource governance.


Table 1. South Asia’s Many Roots of Insecurity

hsedalgnaB hsedalgnaB hsedalgnaB hsedalgnaB hsedalgnaB aidnI aidnI aidnI aidnI aidnI lapeN lapeN lapeN lapeN lapeN natsikaP natsikaP natsikaP natsikaP natsikaP aknaLirS aknaLirS aknaLirS aknaLirS aknaLirS gnipoleveD gnipoleveD gnipoleveD gnipoleveD gnipoleveDseirtnuoC seirtnuoC seirtnuoC seirtnuoC seirtnuoC dlroW dlroW dlroW dlroW dlroW

aerA aerA aerA aerA aerAmkerauqs000'

)9991(441 882,3 741 697 66 784,101 784,101 784,101 784,101 784,101 275,331

noitalupoP noitalupoP noitalupoP noitalupoP noitalupoP)9991(snoilliM 821 899 32 531 91 480,5 480,5 480,5 480,5 480,5 579,5

htworGnoitalupoP htworGnoitalupoP htworGnoitalupoP htworGnoitalupoP htworGnoitalupoPetaR etaR etaR etaR etaR

)99-0991(launnA6.1 8.1 4.2 5.2 2.1 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.1 7.1

atipaCrePPNG atipaCrePPNG atipaCrePPNG atipaCrePPNG atipaCrePPNG)9991(sralloDSU 073 054 022 074 028 042,1 042,1 042,1 042,1 042,1 098,4

atipaCrePPNG atipaCrePPNG atipaCrePPNG atipaCrePPNG atipaCrePPNGPPP 5 )9991(sralloD 5741 441,2 912,1 757,7 650,3 014,3 014,3 014,3 014,3 014,3 094,6

ytilatroM5-rednU ytilatroM5-rednU ytilatroM5-rednU ytilatroM5-rednU ytilatroM5-rednU)8991(000,1reP 69 38 701 021 81 9797979797 57

ycnatcepxEefiL ycnatcepxEefiL ycnatcepxEefiL ycnatcepxEefiL ycnatcepxEefiLF/M F/M F/M F/M F/M )8991( 95/85 46/26 85/85 36/16 67/17 76/36 76/36 76/36 76/36 76/36 96/56

ycaretiLtludA ycaretiLtludA ycaretiLtludA ycaretiLtludA ycaretiLtludAehtfo%

dna51noitalupoP)8991(F/Mevoba

17/94 75/53 87/34 17/24 21/6 33/81 33/81 33/81 33/81 33/81 23/81

noitatinaSnabrU noitatinaSnabrU noitatinaSnabrU noitatinaSnabrU noitatinaSnabrUsseccahtiw%

)69-0991(77 64 43 35 33 ----- -

ni41-01nerdlihC ni41-01nerdlihC ni41-01nerdlihC ni41-01nerdlihC ni41-01nerdlihCecroFrobaL ecroFrobaL ecroFrobaL ecroFrobaL ecroFrobaL

puorgegafo%)9991(

92 31 34 61 2 3131313131 21

xednIINIG xednIINIG xednIINIG xednIINIG xednIINIG 66666

)79-5991( 6.33 8.73 7.63 2.13 4.43 ----- -

gnidnepScilbuP gnidnepScilbuP gnidnepScilbuP gnidnepScilbuP gnidnepScilbuPnoitacudEno noitacudEno noitacudEno noitacudEno noitacudEno

)7991(PNGfo%2.2 2.3 2.3 7.2 4.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 8.4

gnidnepScilbuP gnidnepScilbuP gnidnepScilbuP gnidnepScilbuP gnidnepScilbuPhtlaeHno htlaeHno htlaeHno htlaeHno htlaeHno

PDGfo%)89-0991(

6.1 6.0 3.1 9.0 4.1 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.1 5.2

tbeDlanretxE tbeDlanretxE tbeDlanretxE tbeDlanretxE tbeDlanretxE)8991(PNGfo% 22 02 13 14 14 ----- -

Source: World Bank (2000).


from South Asia is predominantly in thelanguage of society-centric “human” security.In addition, the chapters on Bangladesh, India,and Pakistan all stress the importance oflivelihoods insecurity as the source of pressureon natural resources. The local case studiesfrom these countries highlight how povertymanifested in livelihoods insecurity—notresource insecurity in and of itself—leads topressures on resources such as fisheries(Bangladesh), forests (Pakistan), biodiversity(Sri Lanka), and land (India) and hence on tosecur ity. Poverty exacerbates resourcedegradation, which in turn exacerbatespoverty in a vicious cycle.

The research in Najam (2003) that drawsfrom Northern Pakistan, Bangladesh, andIndia also shows that restrictive resourceconservation policies such as forest enclosurescan aggravate insecurity rather than relievingit unless these policies are rooted in the largergoal of poverty alleviation. The “human-elephant” conflict in Sri Lanka highlightsanother aspect of this point. Policies made torestrict the use of certain areas in order toprovide passage to elephants precipitatedconflicts, because the expansion of elephant

habitat served to restrict the human habitat.Second, the new South Asia research also

provides fresh insights on the environmentalsecurity models proposed by Thomas Homer-Dixon and his colleagues (see Homer-Dixon,1991, 1999; Homer-Dixon, Boutwell, &Rathjens, 1993; Homer-Dixon & Blitt, 1998).An abridged version of the argument of thisbody of literature is presented in theintroduction to the Homer-Dixon’s bookEcoviolence:

…[S]evere environmental scarcities oftencontribute to major civil violence. Poorcountries are more vulnerable to thisviolence, because large fractions of theirpopulations depend for their day-to-daylivelihoods on local renewableresources….Moreover, poor countriesare often unable to adapt effectively toenvironmental scarcity because theirstates are weak, markets inefficient andcorrupt, and human capital inadequate(Homer-Dixon & Blitt, 1998, page 15).

As already discussed, the findings of ourstudy emphasize the importance of livelihoodsinsecurity to the causal chain leading toconflict. In other cases, however, the mostimportant factor is not poverty but institutionalfailure in the form of resource capture. Thisconclusion seems to be the lesson from thewater sector as well as parts of the forestrysector in Pakistan. The capture of preciousforest resources by the so-called “forest mafia”in Pakistan has resulted not only in resourcescarcity but also in the exclusion ofcommunities that were traditionallydependent on this resource—thus placingeven greater pressure on the resource.Ultimate responsibility, however, lies with theinstitutional and governance structure thatoriginally enabled the resource capture andeventually failed to check the violence by notproviding civil means of dispute resolution.

As illustrated in our research, variousirr igation projects in Nepal str ikinglyillustrate the critical role of weak institutionsof governance as the precursor (and sometimestr igger) of conflict over environmentalresources. While the importance of resourcescarcity in Nepal cannot be denied, theweakness of state institutions there and theirinability to accommodate community

Truck stalled in a creek, Nepal.

“South Asia is the region with the highest levelsof human deprivation.”

Credit: Ricardo Wray/CCP.


institutions led to a near permanent conflictamong these community institutions—which,in turn, spilled into occasional conflicts amongstakeholders. All three sector papers in Najam(2003)—on energy, land, and water—stronglysuggest that institutions are viable only whenall stakeholders consider them legitimate. Suchinstitutional legitimacy may well be a necessarycondition for good resource management, andthus for the avoidance of conflict.

Regional studies of energy and landinstitutions across South Asia emphasized thatresource security in both these areas is moreoften a case of institutional stability than ofsimple resource scarcity. For example, asurprising finding of our chapter on energyis that, by all measures available, bothBangladesh and Sr i Lanka have beenmore energy resilient than Pakistan(methodologically, this analysis maps the trendsin energy efficiency, energy dependence, andenvironmental impacts of energy use in eachcountry of the region). This finding issurprising because Pakistan has relativelymore abundant energy resources than eitherBangladesh or Sri Lanka. Our analysisdemonstrates that the critical difference hereis not resource endowment but resourcemanagement, which is directly related toinstitutions for resource governance. Thisdynamic, of course, has a direct bearing onenvironmental insecurity as well as conflictover resources. The evidence suggests thatrobust institutions of governance can limit(even if they might not eliminate) thelikelihood of such conflict. For instance,regional institutions for water management—particularly the Indus Water Accord betweenIndia and Pakistan—have remainedremarkably stable even in the face of persistentand frequently spiking regional tensions.

Linking the two insights describedimmediately above, our research stronglysuggests that chronic and structuralimpoverishment forges the connectionbetween environmental degradation andviolent conflict. Such a conception itself leadsto a focus on: (a) social disruptions at the levelof society, not the state; and (b)conceptualizations related to humaninsecurity. Indeed, others who have alsolooked at the myriad security threats facedby South Asians have come to similarconclusions—most notably, Dr. Mahbub ul

Haq in launching the Human Development inSouth Asia reports:

Security is increasingly interpreted as:security of people, not just of territory;security of individuals, not just of nations;security through development, notthrough arms; security of all peopleeverywhere—in their homes, on theirjobs, in their streets, in theircommunities, and in the environment(ul Haq, 1997, page 84).

While environmental degradation is morelikely to lead to violent conflict in poorcountries, poverty—in terms of economic,social, or political disenfranchisement and

vulnerability—may be a required conditionfor this connection to be made. The povertyconnection requires more empirical research,but it might have the potential to untie manyof the convoluted knots of environmentalsecurity debates. And shifting the focus of thediscussion from resource scarcity to the motorsthat cause such scarcity—including povertyand the institutions of governance—providesus with defined areas of policy intervention.Unlike resource conservation, both povertyand governance are areas of high policysalience in most developing countries andcertainly in all South Asian countr ies.Environmental security flows best out ofpolicies that target poverty and governance;it also is more synergistic when built onexisting priorities instead of on resourceconservation, which competes with otherpolicy demands.

Five Key LessonsFive Key LessonsFive Key LessonsFive Key LessonsFive Key Lessons

The new research from South Asia underdiscussion also highlights a handful of broadlessons that are more specific to the regionand its constituent countries. The followingfive broad lessons are of particular importancebecause they have the potential to add to ourunderstanding of environment and security

Democracy counts, transparency counts,

culture counts, decentralization counts, and

(most importantly) participation counts.


at the regional level. These lessons, of course,should be understood in light of the need tofocus on poverty as a primary but not solemotor of human insecurity.

Lesson 1: For South Asia in particular anddeveloping countries in general, environmentand security are best conceptualized within thecontext of sustainable development. Not onlydoes it make sense to broaden the notion of“security” into one of “human security,” itmakes sense to understand the human-securityframework within a sustainable-development

context. Indeed, human security can beviewed as a fundamental requirement for theachievement of sustainable development. Thisconnection is not entirely a surprise: the WorldCommission on Environment andDevelopment (WCED, 1987) had itself madethat connection explicit sixteen years ago.However, so much of the literature onenvironment and security tends not tohighlight the importance of sustainabledevelopment.

Placing the environment and human-security problematique within the sustainable-development complex has at least twoimportant implications. First, such aconceptualization allows us to articulate issuesrelated to environment and security at thelevel and in the language of policy andpractice. Second, it contributes towards abetter understanding of what sustainabledevelopment means in practice. Such aconceptual focus broadens the scope of theenquiry: from a focus on how environmentaldegradation might lead to societal and stateinsecurities to a broader focus that includeshow human insecurities influence (or areinfluenced by) accelerated environmentaldegradation.

Imperfect as it might be, sustainable-development policy becomes a potential meansof addressing the twin challenges ofenvironmental degradation and humaninsecurity; it works best, however, when bothchallenges are taken as serious and neither isdeemed subservient to the other. Security is

intricately related to the issue of livelihoodand cannot be delinked from concerns aboutthe content and context of the developmentexper iment. Indeed, debates regardinghuman and environmental security are inthemselves attempts to better understand andoperationalize the concept of sustainabledevelopment.

The South Asian research being reportedhere tends to ignore—if not resist and reject—arguments about whether environmentaldegradation should be an element of“traditional” military- and state-relatedsecurity concerns.7 This elision departs fromthe norm of the broader environment andsecurity literature. Clearly, the region’s scholarsseem more comfortable definingenvironmental secur ity as one morecomponent of sustainable development ratherthan as a dimension of “traditional” nationalsecurity.

Lesson 2: The challenge of environment andsecurity in South Asia is both principally achallenge at the domestic level as well as achallenge common to the region. Dabelko,Lonergan, and Matthew (2000, page 56) haveconcluded that “the most severe challengesfor individual well-being in many parts ofthe world may not be external (to the countryof residence), but internal; although internalproblem are likely to be affected in some wayby external forces.” The experience fromSouth Asia echoes this finding. Indeed, thenew research in Najam (2003) often bringsthe problem down to ground level rather thanraising it up to national—let alone regional—levels. Regional dimensions are notunimportant, but local challenges are morenumerous as well as more profound.

The primacy of local challenges in SouthAsia indicated by this research is a surprise,given the intensity of the region’s tensions.But that very intensity makes environmentalissues unlikely to become significantinternational security concerns in the region.Countries in the region have so many otherand more pressing disputes that environmentalissues slip down the list of potential flare-uppoints. At the same time, such issues can easilybecome embroiled in existing and unrelateddisputes within the region—a possibilityexplored further below.

Taking a regional perspective is also valid

Poverty, not scarcity, is driving environmental

and human security in South Asia.


for another reason. Local environmental andhuman-security stresses in South Asia are sopressing and so similar that shared knowledgeis essential for their solution.

Lesson 3: The challenge of environment andsecurity in South Asia is at its core not just aproblem of resource endowments or geography,but quite distinctly a problem of institutionsand governance. Institutions and governanceare central to the understanding in Najam(2003) of how environment and security arelinked in the South Asian context. At one level,the conclusions are not particularly surprising;environmental crises in many developingregions are not just crises of resource scarcityor degradation but are fundamentally tied tofragile environmental governance institutions.However, so much of the literature onenvironment and security tends to underplayif not ignore the importance of governancein favor of a concentration on resourcescarcity and environmental degradation.

The new research from South Asia showsthat, in many cases, a lack of appropriateinstitutions and governance can help explainnot only the levels of human insecurity butalso the scarcity and degradation ofenvironmental resources. And institutionaland governance weaknesses can lead tosignificant human insecurity even in theabsence of severe environmental scarcity ordegradation. In addition, solutions toenvironment and security issues will not comefrom techno-fixes and mega projects thatmight somehow “overrule” the forces ofgeography and nature; the solutions are morelikely to come from institutional andgovernance reform. The lesson from SouthAsia seems to be that democracy counts,transparency counts, culture counts,decentralization counts, and (mostimportantly) participation counts: all canbecome the basis of social justice and areultimately tools for managing and evenavoiding conflict. Resource scarcity does notsimply turn into conflict—it turns into conflictwhen there is an institutional failurebecause democratic, transparent, culturallyappropriate, localized, and participatorymeans of managing resources and dealingwith disputes are either not available or aresystematically sidelined.

By broadening the focus beyond resource

scarcity and degradation, we raise someconceptual issues for the environment andsecurity literature. An earlier generation ofscholars had been preoccupied with the effectsof security issues (particularly war andpreparation for war) on the environment, ormore precisely on natural resources (Galtung,1982; Westing, 1984, 1988; and Renner,1991). Current interest in environment andsecurity has moved in the opposite directionand tends to focus on how environmentaldegradation can lead to insecur ityand violence (Deudney & Matthew,1999; Homer-Dixon, 1999; Diehl &Gleditsch, 2001). But both arguments haveenvironmental conservation—not humansecurity—as their core interest. In focusingon sustainable development as the metric ofanalysis and placing human security morecentrally in the discussion, we highlight theimportance of looking at both linkagestogether. How does insecurity at any levelimpact the environment? And how doesenvironmental scarcity and degradationimpact insecurity at any level?

Such a formulation also allows us to moveaway from the more restrictive notion of“acute violence” to the more encompassingconcept of insecurity, particularly humaninsecurity. The finding from across South Asia

A mother’s group meeting in Nepal discussingcommunity sanitation.

“Eight hundred-thirty million people in South Asiaare without rudimentary sanitation.”

Credit: Ricardo Wray/CCP.


existing regional secur ity tensions andapprehensions, the broader sense of insecuritythat defines the region’s interstate relationscould be exacerbated by environmentalconcerns. In his study of environment andsecurity in South Asia, Norman Myers (1993,page 117) posits a fundamental question:“How can we realistically suppose thatenvironmental problems will not exert asubstantial and adverse influence over theprospects for the region’s security throughoutthe foreseeable future?” It is also quite clearthat the ultimate effect of human insecurityand environmental degradation tends to bepolitical instability. As Shaukat Hassan (1991,page 65) puts it, “in South Asia environmentaldeterioration has a very direct and immediateimpact on the economy of the states, whichin turn affects social relations in waysdetrimental to political stability.”

Lesson 5: There is the potential—albeitsmall—for a new generation of securityrelations in the region emerging around thenexus of environment and security. Theserelations would be based on principles of mutualtrust, harmony, and cooperation rather thanon legacies of distrust and dispute. Even thoughsecurity (in the international context) isgenerally seen as an adversarial concept, theenvironment demands a politics of consensusand cooperation. A new approach to securitywould stress the need for cooperativemanagement of shared environments ratherthan adversarial contests over scarce resources.

We should be cautious, however, aboutthe potential for moving to a new generationof security relations that start from thenecessity of cooperation rather than from ahistory of confrontations. Given the“traditional” security profile of the region, itis unlikely that such cooperation wouldnaturally evolve. Even where the need forsuch cooperation is self-evident, the hurdlesto its establishment are profound. The SouthAsian Association for Regional Cooperation(SAARC), for instance, has made onlyminimal efforts to foster regionalenvironmental cooperation. Given thepersistent regional tensions in South Asia,establishing meaningful cooperation on theenvironment will require more thandeclaratory intent.

Yet some initial steps could begin creating

is that even where environmental variablesdo not directly cause conflict, they canincrease insecurity by accentuating thevariables that can precipitate conflict.8 Other

forms of insecurity can also accentuate theconditions conducive to environmentaldegradation, thereby increasing eventualenvironmental insecur ity. The key tounderstanding the link between environmentand security in any given context may notlie in variables directly related to either (suchas scarcity or war). It may lie, instead, in issuesthat impact but are not directly related toeither—such as failure of institutions andgovernance.

Lesson 4: The prospect of interstate violence inSouth Asia over environmental issues is slim.However, given the region’s history of distrustand dispute, environmental differences couldadd to existing tensions and apprehensions andperpetuate the general sense of insecurity thatpervades interstate relations in the region.Unlike others who have studied environmentand security in South Asia and who tend toconsider the region as a prime “actiontheatre” for environmental conflicts (Myers,1989, 1993; Hassan, 1991, 1992), the set ofstudies from all over South Asia in Najam(2003) is far more careful about paintingdoomsday scenarios. Indeed, our authors areunanimous that the prospects of outright warin South Asia over these issues are not high.Arguably, there are far more immediate causesof interstate tension in the region. And despitefractious relations, even India and Pakistan(for example) have demonstrated a remarkabledegree of cooperation and even occasionalgoodwill in the shared management of aprecious resource such as water: the IndusWater Treaty remains one of the few areas ofsustained cooperation between the twocountries. This cooperation has been severelytested in recent months; but fragile as it isand despite much saber rattling, it remainsintact.

But the authors also suggest that, given

The broader sense of insecurity that defines

the region’s interstate relations could be

exacerbated by environmental concerns.


an atmosphere of cooperation. An importantfirst step could be institutionalizing some levelof region-wide information sharing and jointplanning for common concerns such as water,climate change, and biodiversity. The sharingof best practices, particularly in the areas oftechnological and institutional innovations forenvironmental enhancement, is anotherobvious step. Expert dialogue needs to bestrengthened and deepened at the regionallevel. Finally, the increasing prominence ofglobal environmental politics and its North-South dimension argues for developingcountries as a whole as well as regions such asSouth Asia to think in terms of coalitionalrather than individual environmental politics(Najam, 1995, 2000; Agarwal et al., 1999).The SAARC is well placed to take such stepsand should be urged to continue its efforts in

this direction.The environment has the potential to

become an “entry point” for wider regionalcooperation. The very nature of theenvironmental problematique points towardsthe urgency of adopting a cooperativemindset. And the language of human securityat least allows for the potential of focusing onregional secur ity without necessar ilyregurgitating stylized debates about traditionalhurdles to cooperation. Meaningful regionalcooperation for improved environmental andhuman security in South Asia—home to abillion and a half people, including some ofthe poorest and most vulnerable populationsin the world—may well be too much to hopefor. But hope we must.

NotesNotesNotesNotesNotes

1 The more detailed analysis and discussion of the study (which was conducted with Ford FoundationFunding for the Regional Centre for Security Studies (RCSS), Colombo, Sri Lanka) are available in therecently published edited volume Environment, Development and Human Security: Perspectives from South Asia(Najam, 2003). The ten chapters of the book—all written by authors from South Asia (three authors eachfrom India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, and two each from Nepal and Sri Lanka)—explored environment andsecurity links in specific countries of the region (Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka) and alsolooked at cross-country trends on key policy areas (land and agriculture, energy, and water). This essay buildson the insights from the introductory and conclusion chapters of the book.

2 For related discussion, see Najam (1996).

3 Since South Asia is a very large region, it of course has pockets of prosperity. Indeed, in each of the countriesof the region, these islands of prosperity (such as, for example, the booming informational technology sectorin India) often serve to highlight the human deprivation and misery that surrounds them. For the purpose ofthis article we will focus on aggregate regional and national pictures rather than the more varied sub-nationalmosaic. This focus does imply a certain loss of local detail, but it also assists us in getting a composite pictureof the region as a whole, which is the point of the article.

4 The following discussion builds on the findings of various chapters in the book (Najam, 2003), which willnot be individually cited here. The various chapters (and authors) are as follows: Introduction (Adil Najam);India (Vandana Asthana & Ashok Shukla); Pakistan (Shaheen Rafi Khan); Bangladesh (Atiq Rahman, ZahidChowdhury, & Ahsan Ahmad); Nepal (Ajaya Dixit & Dipak Gyawali); Sri Lanka (Sarath Kotagama); Energy(Kumudu Gunasekera & Adil Najam); Land (Khalid Saeed); Water (Ramaswamy Iyer); and Conclusion (AdilNajam).

5 PPP=Purchasing Power Parity.

6 The GINI Index measures the extent to which the distribution of income (or consumption) among

individuals or households within a country deviates from a perfectly equal distribution. A value of 0 representsperfect equality; a value of 100 percent perfect inequality.

7 For examples of these debates, see Mathews (1989); Homer-Dixon (1991); Myers (1993); Levy (1995); andDeudney & Matthew (1999).

8 Also see Gurr (1993); Libiszewski (1992); and Dabelko, Lonergan, & Matthew (2000).


Agarwal, Anil; Sunita Narain; & Anju Sharma. (1999). Green politics: Global environmental negotiations-1. NewDelhi: Centre for Science and Environment.

Buzan, Barry. (1991). People, states and fear: An agenda for international security studies in the post-Cold War era (2nd

ed.). Boulder: Lynne Reinner.

Commission on Global Governance. (1995). Our common neighborhood: Report of the Commission on GlobalGovernance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dabelko, Geoffrey D.; Mark Halle; Steve Lonergan; & Richard Matthew. (2000). State-of-the-art review onenvironment, security and development co-operation. Prepared for the Working Party on Development, Co-operation and Environment, OECD Development Assistance Committee, Paris. [On-line]. Available:http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2002/envsec_oecd_review.pdf.

Dalby, Simon. (1992). “Security, modernity, ecology: The dilemmas of post-Cold War security discourse.”Alternatives 17, 95-134.

Deudney, Daniel H. (1990). “The case against linking environmental degradation and national security.”Millennium 19(3), 461-476.

Deudney, Daniel H. & Richard A. Matthew (Eds.). (1999). Contested grounds: Security and conflict in the newenvironmental politics. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Diehl, Paul F. & Nils-Petter Gleditsch (Eds.) (2001). Environmental conflict. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Elliott, Lorraine. (2001). “Regional environmental security: Pursuing a non-traditional approach.” In AndrewT.H. Tan & J.D. Kenneth Boutin (Eds.), Non-traditional security issues in Southeast Asia (pages 438-67).Singapore: Select Publishing.

Galtung, Johan. (1982). Environment, development and military activity: Towards alternative security doctrines. NewYork: Columbia University Press.

Gizewski, Peter & Thomas Homer-Dixon. (1998). “The case of Pakistan.” In Thomas F. Homer-Dixon &Jessica Blitt (Eds.), Ecoviolence: Links among environment, population, and security (pages 147-200). Lanham,MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Gleditsch, Nils-Petter. (1998). “Armed conflict and the environment: A critique of the literature.” Journal ofPeace Research 35(3), 381-400.

Gleick, Peter. (1991, April). “Environment and security: The clear connections.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists47(3), 17-21.

Gurr, Ted R. (1993). Minorities at risk: A global view of ethnopolitical conflicts. Washington, DC: United StatesInstitute of Peace.

ul Haq, Mahbub. (1997). Human development in South Asia, 1997. Karachi: Oxford University Press and theHuman Development Center.

Hassan, Shaukat. (1991). Environmental issues and security in South Asia. (Adelphi Papers 262). London:International Institute for Security Studies.

Hassan, Shaukat. (1992). “Environmental sources of conflict in the South Asian subcontinent.” Disarmament15(1), 79-95.

Homer-Dixon, Thomas F. (1991). “On the threshold: Environmental changes as causes of acute conflict.”International Security 16(2), 76-116.

Homer-Dixon, Thomas F. (1999). Environment, scarcity, and violence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University

ReferencesReferencesReferencesReferencesReferences


Press.

Homer-Dixon, Thomas F. & Jessica Blitt (Eds.). (1998). Ecoviolence: Links among environment, population, andsecurity. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Homer-Dixon, Thomas F.; Jeffrey H. Boutwell; & George W. Rathjens. (1993). “Environmental change andviolent conflict.” Scientific American 268(2), 38-45.

Islam, Nahid. (1994). “Environment and security in South Asia: A regional overview.” In Iftekharuzzaman(Ed.), South Asia’s security: Primacy of internal dimension (pages 1-24). Dhaka: Academic Publishers.

Levy, Marc. (1995). “Is environment a national security issue?” International Security 20(2), 35-62.

Libiszewski, Stephan. (1992). What is an environmental conflict? Environment and Conflict Project (ENCOP)Occasional Paper No. 6. Zurich: Center for Security Studies and Conflict Research.

Mathews, Jessica T. (1989). “Redefining security.” Foreign Affairs 68(2), 162-177.

Myers, Norman. (1989). “Environmental security: The case of South Asia.” International Environmental Affairs1(2), 138-54.

Myers, Norman. (1993). Ultimate security: The environmental basis of political stability. New York: W.W. Norton &Co.

Najam, Adil. (1995). “An environmental negotiation strategy for the South.” International EnvironmentalAffairs 7(3), 249-287.

Najam, Adil. (1996). “Understanding the third sector: Revisiting the Prince, the merchant and the Prince.”Nonprofit Management and Leadership 7(2), 203-19.

Najam, Adil. (2000). “Trade and environment after Seattle: A negotiating agenda for the South.”Journal of Environment and Development 9(4), 405-25.

Najam, Adil (Ed.). (2003). Environment, development and human security: Perspectives from South Asia. Lanham,MD: University Press of America.

Renner, Michael. (1991). “Assessing the military’s war on the environment.” In Lester Brown (Ed.), State of theworld 1991 (pages 135-52). New York: W.W. Norton.

Suhrke, Astri. (1999). “Human security and the interest of states.” Security Dialogue 30(3), 265-276.

Ullman, Richard H. (1983). “Redefining security.” International Security 8(1), 129-153.

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (1994). Human development report 1994. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

United Nations Security Council. (1992). Note by the president of the United Nations Security Council (UNdocument s/23500). New York: United Nations.

Walt, Stephen M. (1991). “The renaissance of security studies.” International Studies Quarterly 35(2): 211-239.

Westing, Arthur H. (1998). Global norms, war and the environment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

the human dimensions of environmental insecurity… · that poverty and weak institutions of...

Documents