Environment and Security: Two sides of a Coin in Order to Achieve a Sustainable Future

Kristin Krohn Devold, Minister of Defence, Norway

Speech at the NATO/CCMS Conference in Ålesund, Norway
20 June 2005

Introduction – a new understanding of security and environment

Ladies and gentlemen!

When I grew up, here in Ålesund, we learned about security and environment as two very separate issues.

We were taught that security was a question of democracy versus communism, of collective efforts in a Cold War, of the need for strong Armed Forces to deter an adversary.

We were taught that the environment was a question of air pollution, oil spills, littering and energy savings.

And we were taught that our own peace and security first and foremost relied on NATO and the United States.

But living is learning. And learning is indeed a lifelong process. So much has changed.

To understand what security is today, and to understand the threats against peace and human life in a new era, we have to consider a multitude of different factors.

We must consider terrorism, poverty, migration, water pollution, HIV/AIDS, climate change, and much, much more.

Now we know that environmental factors can be a threat to human security and even destabilize nations. We have learned that peace also may depend on the state of our environment.

In other words, we have learned that maintaining and improving environmental quality are preconditions for achieving sustainable development.

The inescapable fact is: Environment and security are two sides of the same coin. Both are necessary in order to achieve a sustainable future.

Our environment has become a security issue. How can we protect people without protecting their environment?

Security could never be achieved merely by constructing more or better weapons. Security always had to be achieved by employing a range of security policy instruments:

• from diplomacy to active use of military force
• from humanitarian assistance to education
• from non-governmental organisations to national governments and intergovernmental organisations.

But there is one major change: today, security has become a global issue. Globalisation does not only mean trade, tourism and satellite television.

Introducing today’s speech

This morning, I will give you my view of what a new and broader security concept demands of policymakers in the field of defence. How may the Armed Forces cope with the new challenges?

In some respects the job as Norwegian Minister of Defence is the same today as it was during the Cold War: to safeguard Norway’s security and to protect the well-being of the Norwegian people through military means. But the way we approach that objective has changed significantly.

“Security” as we understand it today, is more than protecting Norway’s territorial integrity and political sovereignty – what we call state security.

And is it meaningful today to make a distinction between national and international security? In most cases, the answer is no.

Security is also a question of societal security and the security of the individual – human security. Protecting the rights and well-being of people – as individuals and as members of a community – is an integral part of our security concept.

And that leads us to the many threats to the human environment. The natural environment certainly is a part of it. However, people also have a social, economic, and political environment.

The 1990s taught us that the international society no longer can turn a blind eye to man-made catastrophes such as genocide and ethnic cleansing. And whether hunger and starvation is caused by war or natural disasters, people may die in large numbers.

The collapse of Somalia, the genocide in Rwanda, and the civil wars in the Balkan, just to mention a few examples, all became a threat to international peace and stability – in addition to the human suffering that was caused.

Environmental factors are important in understanding and coping with instability and conflict in today’s world. Recently, Darfur has been in the headlines. Sad to say, Darfur is an illustrating example of a more general problem.

In Darfur, drought and desertification forced camel and cattle herders to look for food for their livestock elsewhere. This brought them into conflict with farmers in central and southern Darfur.

The conflict rapidly gained ethnic and religious dimensions. Many factors, but mainly the exploitation of the conflict by the Sudanese government, brought us where we are today. NATO recently decided to get involved, after the request from UN secretary general, Kofi Annan.

In Afghanistan, president Harmid Karzai told me that the extensive deforestation during the long civil war had led to serious soil degradation. Opium poppies represent one of few crops that survive in the arid conditions that now prevail in major parts of the country.

And here we find an important factor behind Afghanistan’s heroin production, a problem that threatens a large number of countries and societies, including Norway.

Frequently, we may observe a vicious circle. Population growth and environmental degradation create a miserable life for an increasing number of people. Scarce resources create social and ethnic conflicts. Access to sufficient food, drinking water and firewood is already a key problem in many regions.

In the Middle East in particular, access to water it is a growing problem. Armed conflict, organised crime and terrorism may develop under these conditions. Migrations is another result.

These conditions frequently become a threat to political stability – nationally as well as regionally.

People living in the third world are the most vulnerable to these threats.

The most advanced – not to say rich – parts of the world have long been protected from the effects of such unfortunate developments. This is no longer the case – things are changing.

Environmental degradation has global consequences. Climatic change, mass migration, and even terrorism, may be directly or indirectly linked to environmental degradation. It already affects our daily lives.

This fact requires that we understand – and act upon – the complexities of the challenges that humanity is facing. Only then may we succeed in securing peace. n.

Last years Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Wangari Maathai is an example of growing recognition of the importance environment work, as a basis for peace and stability.

Her work linked deforestation with sustainable development and human rights. Without sustainable development and respect for human rights, there can be no peace.

The military

In this picture, military forces operating with legitimate mandates will still play an important role, maybe even more important than before. This is one of the reasons why we put efforts and resources into transforming our Armed Forces.

We are transforming our armed forces, to be relevant for the security challenges of today’s world.

We are transforming our forces to meet the complex and versatile risks and challenges.

We are transforming to be able to send legitimate military help, where they are needed, when they are needed, and with the capabilities that are needed.

There are circumstances in which there are few – if – any alternative to the use of military forces.

We need military forces:

• in securing peace,
• in assisting reconstruction in conflict areas,
• in supporting the safe management of nuclear and chemical materials,
• and in enforcing sustainable resource management, such as coast guarding fishing-resources.

Protecting peace and stability

Securing peace and stability is an imperative to protect our common environment.

Armed conflicts and wars destroy the environment. They do so both directly, through devastation caused by fighting, and indirectly.

Indirect effects include destroyed agricultural areas, pollution from destroyed factories and infrastructure, mines, unexploded munitions and other remnants of war, to mention but a few.

Disruption of agriculture creates a large number of refugees and may lead to over-taxation of the land and wildlife, and force people to eat whatever they may find, wherever they find it.

Environmental destruction may cause additional armed conflicts, which again causes more environmental destruction, which again leads to more conflicts, and so on.

That vicious circle must be broken!

This is where military forces may play an important role in environmental protection: whether they are wearing UN, NATO, EU or African Union badges. International conflict management and military peace operations do play, and might play an increasing important key role in protecting peace and stability.

Many armed conflicts and wars around the world can only be halted through outside intervention. Sometimes, such intervention may take place relatively peacefully, with the consent of the warring parties. One example of this was the deployment of United Nations forces in East Timor in 1999.

In other situations, peace can only be obtained through the active use of force. The NATO intervention in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1995 to stop ethnic cleansing is a good example. Such use of force involves certain risks for both the civilian population and the environment. However, the alternative, to watch the continuously killings of thousands was much worse.

Environmental protection in post-conflict areas

To stop violence is important, but very often only the first part of a peace support operation. When military forces have put an end to armed conflict, they have to provide the most basic conditions for restoring stability and social and economic development. To make living conditions better for ordinary people.

Environmental destruction is one of the challenges that may pose a serious obstacle to the stabilisation and reconstruction of post-conflict societies.

Primary responsibility for humanitarian aid, reconstruction and environmental protection normally rests with national authorities and international organisations such as the UN.

Often, however, the security situation makes it difficult, if not impossible, for civilians to do the job.

An example that illustrates the second important role of military forces in environmental protection, is the UN mandated reconstruction effort in Iraq. The insurgency against anything foreign after the fall of Sadam Hussein’s regime, made Iraq very dangerous for civilian aid workers.

Consequently, an important share of the international reconstruction effort had to be based on the use of military forces in an intermediate face.

A UN Environmental Protection Agency study on Iraq, found four so-called critical long-term environmental vulnerabilities and risks. These were water resource management, waste management, pollution from the oil industry, and ecosystem degradation.

“ Environmental protection”, the study concluded, “ will be a key ingredient of sustainable development in post-conflictIraq.”

From July 2003 to July 2004, a Norwegian armoured engineer squadron was deployed to Basra in southern Iraq. Its mission was to assist in the reconstruction of Iraq’s civil society. By doing so it would help the local population return to normal life, help them to live a normal life, and reduce tension and frustration among the population.

Most of the specific tasks the Norwegian unit handled were directly linked to the critical vulnerabilities identified by the UN study. Assisting the re-construction of the Basra sewage system was one such task.

Without a properly functioning sewage system, the 1,4 million people of Basra would be facing not only a severe health threat, but also dire consequences for the local environment.

Another major task for the Norwegian engineers was to assist in improving water management. Water is vital both for the population and for the natural environment. Poor water management deprives people of clean drinking water, reduces agricultural output and can be disastrous for both fauna and wildlife.

Other tasks were to repair electricity infrastructure, to repair bridges and to destroy explosives that endangered the local population.

The importance of water is even clearer in another area where NATO and Norwegian forces currently are active: in Afghanistan. Decades of civil war and the lack of a functioning government were accompanied by serious mismanagement of water resources.

Many of the wetland areas that earlier supported a lot of trees, a rich wildlife and provided important agricultural produce, are now completely dry.

This destroys the livelihood for both the local population and the wildlife, and forces them to migrate, or grow opium because it survives in very dry areas. As a UNEP report on Afghanistan concluded:

“ Water is key to the health and well-being ofAfghanistan’s people, and essential to maintain agricultural productivity – the heart of the Afghan economy.”

Today 60 present of Afghanistan’s GDP come from production and trade with narcotics. It creates corruption, organised crime and threatens stability all over the country.

Developing and managing the use of water resources is thus essential in securing a sustainable development in Afghanistan. Without such a development, conflict is likely to continue, and our soldiers will be at risk.

International society, therefore, has made water a priority issue. Like in Iraq, however, the security situation in Afghanistan has made it necessary for military forces to play an important role in that work. This is particularly the case outside Kabul, where officers from the Norwegian Armed Forces have contributed actively.

The presence of military forces in a conflict area in itself inevitably involves an environmental challenge. Modern forces rely on large quantities of armoured vehicles, heavy machinery and so on in their day-to-day work, equipment that might cause damage to the environment without proper care.

Norway has taken this challenge very seriously. When our infantry battalion left its camp in Pristina in Kosovo last year, strict Norwegian rules and standards were used in the environmental clean-up in and around the camp. For example, hazardous waste was shipped to France to be safely processed there.

Management of nuclear and chemical material

My third point on the list of important roles for the military in environmental protection, concerns hazardous products. Specifically I want to focus on radioactive material, which represents a grave danger both to the environment and to human security.

If improperly used, stored, transported or discarded, radioactive material may cause serious, long-term environmental damage. The Chernobyl disaster is a prime example.

Today, almost 20 years later, the radioactive fall-out still represents a problem. In some parts of Norway, heightened levels of caesium 137 are still measured in reindeer and sheep, and represent an economic burden for the farmers.

Furthermore, if radioactive material falls into the hands of terrorists, it may be used to produce so-called ‘dirty bombs’. These are bombs that use conventional explosives to spread radioactive material. Sad to say they are easy to construct, may be deadly, and would in any case be extremely disruptive.

The dual threat from pollution and it’s potential use in weapons has made the safe management of radioactive materials a priority for the international society. This is the case at the Kola Peninsula, close to Norway’s border with Russia in the north.

Back in 1996, the United States, Russia and Norway signed the Arctic Military Environmental Cooperation agreement – AMEC – to lay the basis for secure handling and storage of radioactive waste on the Kola Peninsula. In 2003 Great Britain, too, signed the agreement.

The AMEC agreement demonstrates the major efforts western military authorities put in preventing proliferation of nuclear materials and in nuclear waste handling. These efforts are directly relevant to our societal security.

Resource management

The link between the environment and security is not only a global issue. Protecting the environment is of outmost importance also here at home.

Climate change, pollution and unrestricted exploitation of natural resources pose a serious threat to the national economy, to our health and to the ecological balance also for Western societies.

For Norway, a custodian of ocean areas almost the size of the Mediterranean, the management of maritime living and fossil resources is of particular importance.

We get practically all our income from the Sea; the export of fish, the oil and gas production, the shipping-business.

A failure to successfully regulate the exploitation of these resources would represent a threat not only to the environment, but to Norwegian society, notably the Norwegian economy.

With the help of strict policies and persistent enforcement with military capabilities, Norway has been successful in maintaining a sustainable harvest of fish and other living resources in the sea. The management of the important fish stocks in the Norwegian, Greenland and Barents seas has been, and still represents, a particular important challenge to us.

That challenge illustrates, in fact, the fourth point on my list.

The Norwegian Coast Guard, which is part of the Norwegian Navy, in cooperation with Radarsystems, maritime patrol air-crafts, military intelligence and other parts of the Norwegian forces, plays a key role in the management of living resources in the ocean areas adjacent to Norway.

The temptation of making a quick profit lures some fishermen, including foreigners into unlawful fishing, cheating on their quotas and using illegal equipment. Left unrestricted, such behaviour would overtax the fish stocks and ruin both the ecological balance in the sea and the livelihood of all fishermen, and the whole Norwegian fishing industry and export-business.

This is why Norway, through its Armed Forces, invests large resources not only in Coast Guard vessels, but also in surveillance and monitoring of the ocean areas under Norwegian jurisdiction.

These efforts aim at ensuring up-dated situational awareness, including keeping track of shipping, particularly oil tankers from Russia, off the Norwegian coast.

Major oil spills and other serious pollution represent a grave threat to wildlife and fauna in the sea and along our coast. Given the importance of the fishing industry to the Norwegian economy and to our demographic structure, such pollution may also represent a direct threat to Norway’s societal security.

Conclusion

Ladies and gentlemen!

“Security” as we know it today, is more than just an issue of preventing conflict and war. It is about human security. It is about our environment. It is about our common future. Not only along our coast, but world wide.

Only through security may a sustainable society be achieved. And only through security may human life and dignity be assured.

The Armed Forces are a vital instrument in ensuring peace and stability.

When used wisely and for the common good, military forces and military operations may indeed provide the framework for reversing environmental degradation. For breeding new ground for a sustainable development in harshly tested societies.

That is why we transform our Armed forces. That is why Norway went to Iraq with a clear mandate. That is why we have to go to Sudan. And that is why we plan for a continued military presence in Afghanistan.

Security and Development, are two sides of the same coin. The world need both.

Thank you for your attention.