1. The debate Environment and security:definitional issues: –environmental degradation: scarcity –security: whose security? (international, national, societal, human) –what kind of security? Wars (combat-related death) comprehensive collective security (war - reduced life chances)

2. Framing the question environmental degradation causes war? – indirect, underlying, intervening,contributing environmental degradation source of human/societal insecurity(short of war)? –Yes

3. Why linking environment and security? early 1990s - expanded security concept –institutional reason for new wine in old “national security” bottles early 2000 - alternative security concepts –human, environmental, sustainable development, health (UN “secure world report”) –security language validates importance Pentagon 2004 report

4. Environmental degradation and war(1) Early 90’s: ED causes violent conflict - major security concern critics (1) : quantitative approach: no significant statistical links ED and civil war/international wars [nor with inequality, lack of HR, democracy, ethnic diversity] civil wars: statistically linked with poverty, previous wars, “bad neighborhoods”

5. ED and international war Critics (2) case literature: have quantifiers missed something? International wars: “soccer war”(Honduras-El Salvador 1969 –migration [oil wars - abundance vs scarcity concept]

6. ED and violent internal conflict Critics(2): analytical concerns: “scarcity” poorly developed concept relevant as underlying or contributing factor, but in itself explains little (classic case: Rwanda 1994) malthusian blinders? –Technology –socio-political capacity to adjust

7. Better explanations (1) rate and type of ED –time factor (Pentagon 2004 report) political economy capacity to adjust (technology, aid) institutions for conflict resolution (social and human resources) –ex: ED+ failure of intervening variables Guatemala, Nepal

8. Better explanations (2) ED produces powerless victims, rather than actors that can threaten others: –ex: “environmental refugees” - pushed back –famine victims - “die quietly” result: human insecurity,comprehensive collective insecurity, but not “wars” strictu sensu

9. Policy implications “Securitisation” of environmental issues –invites threat scenarios and offensive/defensive strategies –invites military involvement –? Invites national, not international response (Pentagon 2004report) Strenghtening current international regimes does not require securitisation