Environmental Security - Essay Example

Environmental Security Introduction Environment is an essential part of every facet of human life. Not only humans, but every living being on earth is dependent on the environment for survival. Every vital component like air, water, soil and food comes from the environment. Therefore, the need to protect the environment is intrinsically important. Essentially, human survival depends on the mutual connection between the environment and individuals. Human health and safety is largely dependent on the surroundings which indicate the vulnerability of livings beings to environmental changes like temperature fluctuation, lack of oxygen due to pollution etc. This paper focuses on environment security, a concept that allows policy makers to establish a bridge between thought and action so as to replenish natural resources that are destroyed by human mismanagement or negligence. Environmental Security Although there are various definitions proposed by the Millennium Project, they have been ranked according to importance, relevance and completeness. Based on such ranking the best definition so far that has approved by scientists is “Environmental security is the relative public safety from environmental dangers caused by natural or human processes due to ignorance, accident, mismanagement or design and originating within or across national borders” (Chourou, 2011, p.373). In the global level, various aspects have been recognized as potential security threats in the next ten years. Human contribution is a major element since population growth is increasingly creating imbalance in the biodiversity. Similarly, climate change is becoming a grave issue more for negligence by humans than its manifestation. Moreover, overpopulation is rapidly creating food and water scarcity along with contamination of air and oceans (Chourou, 2011, p.373). Environment security has today become a global concern, and it has attracted the attention of the security community. Therefore, the involved actors accomplish the task of risk evaluation and it has been agreed upon that climate change causes potential hazards. The US security community remains engaged in evaluating every contingency and accordingly planning effective solutions. Environment is one major issue that is rapidly gaining prominence in the context of defense planning. The use of military tools for environmental risk assessment is subjected to criticisms since these tools are force oriented. Although environmental issues like climate change can galvanize the military because of its potential risks, it is however not prudent to use military tools for this purpose as they are not compatible for fighting climate change. Another point of criticism is that potential risks are accepted as serious threats even without full scientific evidence (Dabelko, 2009, p.18). The precautionary principle In 1992, the UN conference has defined precautionary principles for the purpose of combating environmental degradation and sustainable development. The major problem related to precautionary principle is its lack of clear definition. The Wingspread statement in 1998 provided a definition: “When an activity raises threat of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically” (Raffensperger & Tickner, 1999, pp.353-354). In spite of its weak definition, the precautionary principle has been advocated by all states, and has been adopted by many national and international agreements and government bodies since it provides a legal framework to what is otherwise a vague concept. The precautionary principle is born out of eagerness to take action before any concrete scientific proof can be given of impending risks. This eagerness arises from the concern that further delay of implementing policies can cause serious and irreversible damage to the environment and human health. Here, precaution does not only indicate those measures that are taken to deal with potential risks recognized by scientific evidence. Precautionary principle means that policy makers should be able to make anticipation of future calamities or environmental damage and accordingly formulate policies even before scientific proof of potential damage is established. In reality there is no clear difference between precautionary measures and preventive actions (Raffensperger & Tickner, 1999, p.24). The universal support received by the precautionary principle is due to the fact that traditional methods of coping with environmental damage are regarded as outdated and deeply flawed. Such methods are essentially dependent on risk calculation and cost benefit analysis. It is not possible always to make accuracies in risk calculation, and policies need to be implemented irrespective of costs because environmental protection is vital for life on earth. The precautionary principle has three major features which are potential risk of damage to environment or human, animal or plant life, lack of scientific evidence supporting impact and casualty, and precautionary response. All these three characteristics of precautionary principles give rise to several questions. Firstly, there is the issue of degree of potential risk and whether every risk, even if it is very small, can invoke precautionary principle. Secondly, there is the question of how much lack of scientific evidence can trigger precautionary principle, and whether total lack of scientific evidence can make the principle irrational. Finally, there is the question of what kind of precautionary measure like whether warning people of impending danger will suffice, or whether steps need to be taken to reduce the effects or whether measures should be adopted to prevent the effects or eliminate the cause of the effects. The effectiveness of precautionary principles depends on how well these questions can be understood and answered (Gardiner, 2006, pp.35-37). Basic principles It has already been stated that there is lack of clear definition of precautionary principles, and therefore they are defined differently in different international agreements. However, there are certain basic elements attached to these principles irrespective of the country in which they are implemented. The first basic element is that precautionary principles should be implemented with caution since there is paucity of concrete scientific evidence. The principles should be adopted as long as there is potential risk of environmental damage. The second basic element is that policy makers should reserve some ecological space to deal with mismanagement of environment and natural resources. This is because exact level of protection needed by the ecosystem cannot be estimated. The third basic element is that all environment management policies should be stringently implemented so as to discourage people from performing activities that will cause harm to the environment. This means there should be strong control over harmful activities caused by human beings. The fourth basic element is that proof of activities that do not cause harm to the environment should be provided by the initiators instead of the environmentalists. The final basic element is that cost and benefit of the precautionary principles should be assessed and balanced (Chu, 2011, p.134). Lack of scientific evidence United Nations (UN) has established that every state is responsible for maintaining transboundary environment especially if certain actions cause serious consequences. The International Court of Justice has decided in the Corfu Channel Case that no state will use its territory in the manner that will violate the rights of other states. However, such regulations become redundant when environmental damage is caused by consistent activities over a long period like acid rain. In such instances, any remedial steps cannot be taken until the damage has already occurred. When any environmental management policies are designed, scientists are asked to provide evidence of cause and effect which in many cases are “always open to refuted, disputed or otherwise undermined” (Gullett, 1997, p.53). For instance, a specific particle may cause pollution in the air but it cannot be determined whether the pollution is caused solely by that particle, and if not then to what degree the particle is responsible for the pollution (Gullett, 1997, p.53). Therefore, it can be seen that it is both lack of evidence and weight of available evidence that cause major hindrances in implementation of precautionary principles in environmental cases. Precaution can be defined as “a principle that provides an intuitively simple approach to ensuring that human intervention in environmental systems is made less damaging” (Shamir et al., 2007, p.411). Essentially, every activity either has adverse effect on environment or human, plant or animal life, or else there is the likelihood of negative impacts. There are some risks that can be properly understood while there are other which are quite nebulous. For instance, it is believed that both cellular phone radiations and lightening can cause death. However, although both instances are of low probability, still the latter is more scientifically evident than the former because it is still not clearly proven that cellular phone radiation can cause brain tumor. Since most risks are uncertain and cannot be proven without doubt by science, therefore all precautionary principles need to be applied in the face of uncertainty about risk (Shamir et al., 2007, p.412). Conclusion The problem of environmental degradation is a matter of concern of every nation in this world irrespective of their economic and social conditions. It is a question of survival of all living beings on earth. Therefore, fight against environmental hazards cannot be the sole responsibility of any single nation. Every nation of this world should come forward with their ideas and strategies according to their financial capacity. The developed countries should feel the responsibility to assist the poorer nations by sharing their resources and technologies. References Chourou, B. (2011) Environmental Challenges and Risks in North Africa, pp.371-394, In Brauch, H.G. et al. (eds) Coping with global environmental change, disasters and security: threats, challenges, vulnerabilities and risks, Springer Chu, X. (2011). On the Precautionary Principle and Sustainable Utilization of Living Marine Resources of China. Journal of Management and Sustainability, Vol.1, No.1, pp.133-140 Dabelko, G.D. (2009) Planning for climate change: the security community’s precautionary principle. Climate Change, Vol.96, No.1, pp.13-21 Gardiner, S.M. (2006). A Core Precautionary Principle. Journal of Political Philosophy, Vol.14, No.1, pp.33-60 Gullett, W. (1997). Environmental protection and the precautionary principle: a response to scientific uncertainty in environmental management. Environmental and Planning Law Journal, Vol.14, No.1, pp.52-69 Raffensperger, C. & J.A. Tickner (1999) Protecting Public Health and the Environment: Implementing the Precautionary Principle. Island Press Shamir, M., Shamir, L. & M.H. Durfee (2007). The application of fuzzy logic to the precautionary principle. Artificial Intelligence and Law, Vol.15, No.4, pp.411-427 Read More