Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
the key issue, often concentrating on one particular resource or mineral. A third group
elaborated the problem by adopting a broader livelihood approach, while a fourth
group introduced the so-called economies-of-violence - the relation of natural resource
extraction (Watts 2004a; 2004b) and 'greed' oriented approaches. In this framework
the idea of resource abundance as a conflict factor (Billon 2001) also emerged: the
so-called 'resource curse' (Collier 2000). More recently, debates have focused on the
possible role of climate and climate change in promoting conflict in the future. Further,
there has been a whole range of publications and viewpoints where environment is not
seen so much as a conflict factor, but rather as a shared interest between conflict
protagonists and, hence, as a window for peace building. This view builds on the idea
of environmental security as part of a broader notion of human security, as promoted
in the framework of the United Nations (UNDP 1994) and more recently scrutinised by
Sheehan (2006) in his review of scholarly positions on international security. Finally,
there are observers who feel that the 'securitisation' of the environment is a deficient
approach, as it runs counter to the need for a broader, global environmental approach
when dealing with these problems, something that a realist and nationalist approach
is unable to deliver.
To understand these different debates properly, it is not only necessary to review
their arguments and empirical bases, but also to position them within the wider dis-
course on development, security and conflict (Frerks 2007). It is, of course, hardly
possible to aptly summarise the rich, diverse and sometimes intense debate on the
nexus of environment, peace and conflict in a few lines. The summary overview below
is hence unavoidably incomplete, selective and subjective to a certain degree (for more
details on the debate see Klem (2003), who gives a good overview of the different
'schools' and trends in the 1990s, Gleditsch (1998; 2001) and Sheehan (2006: 99-
114) for a critical analysis, and Schubert et al. (2008) for an up-to-date overview of
the state of security and environment research and of the known conflict impacts of
environmental change). A brief historical sketch of the major trends in contemporary
discourse and an outline of some emerging issues will be given below.
2.2.1 From old to new wars
In conflict studies at large we have seen a shift from what has been called classical or
'modern' conflict to contemporary conflict, or as Mary Kaldor coins it, a shift from
'old' to 'new wars' (Kaldor 1999). Though the latter distinction is not absolute and in
fact ideal-typical in nature, there are certainly salient differences in both the discourse
and reality of old wars in comparison to new wars (see Richards 2005 for a critical
review of the explanations of 'new wars'). Key differences include the focus on state
versus human security respectively (see Commission on Human Security 2003; Frerks
and Klein Goldewijk 2007a and 2007b), and the attention paid to military-strategic
versus broader political, socio-economic and environmental factors (see Renner 2005;
Worldwatch Institute 2005). This also implies a revision of the earlier realist and state-
centred understanding of conflict and security, leading to the involvement of a whole
set of non-state actors that deal with the lack of security, namely NGOs at intermediate
levels and community-based organisations (CBOs) at the grassroots level (for literature
on non-state governance and insecurity, see for example Menkhaus 2006, Lund 2006,
Raeymaeckers 2012).
Search WWH ::
Custom Search