Environmental security examines threats posed by environmental events and trends to individuals, communities or nations. It may focus on the impact of humanconflict andinternational relations on theenvironment, or on how environmental problems crossstate borders.
The Millennium Project assessed definitions of environmental security and created a synthesis definition:
Environmental security is environmental viability for life support, with three sub-elements:
It considers the abilities of individuals, communities or nations to cope withenvironmental risks,changes or conflicts, or limitednatural resources. For example, climate change can be viewed a threat to environmental security (see the articleclimate security for more nuance to the discussion.) Human activity impacts CO2 emissions, impacting regional and global climatic and environmental changes and thus changes in agricultural output. This can lead to food shortages which will then cause political debate, ethnic tension, and civil unrest.[1]
Environmental security is an important concept in three fields:international relations andinternational development andhuman security.
Within international development, projects may aim to improve aspects of environmental security such asfood security orwater security, but also connected aspects such asenergy security, that are now recognised asSustainable Development Goals at UN level.[2] Targets forMDG 7 aboutenvironmental sustainability show international priorities for environmental security. Target 7B is about the security offisheries on which many people depend forfood. Fisheries are an example of a resource that cannot be contained within state borders. A conflict before theInternational Court of Justice between Chile and Peru about maritime borders and their associated fisheries[3] is a case study for environmental security.
TheCopenhagen School defines the referent object of environmental security as the environment, or some strategic part of it.[4]
Historically, the definition ofinternational security has varied over time. AfterWorld War II, definitions typically focused on the subject ofrealpolitik that developed during theCold War between theUnited States and theSoviet Union.
As tensions between the superpowers eased after the collapse of the Soviet Union, academic discussions of definitions of security significantly expanded, particularly including environmental threats associated with the political implications of resource use or pollution.[5] By the mid-1980s, this field of study was becoming known as "environmental security". Despite a wide range of semantic and academic debates over terms, it is now widely acknowledged that environmental factors play both direct and indirect roles in both political disputes and violent conflicts.
In the academic sphere environmental security is defined as the relationship between security concerns such as armed conflict and the natural environment. A small but rapidly developing field, it has become particularly relevant for those studying resource scarcity and conflict in the developing world. Prominent early researchers in the field includeFelix Dodds,Norman Myers,Jessica Tuchman Mathews, Michael Renner, Richard Ullman,Arthur Westing,Michael Klare,Thomas Homer Dixon,Geoffrey Dabelko,Peter Gleick, Rita Floyd andJoseph Romm.
According to Jon Barnett, environmental security emerged as an important concept insecurity studies because of some interrelated developments which started in 1960s. The first one was the increasing level ofenvironmental consciousness in so calleddeveloped countries.[6] Various occurrences and events triggered the growth of theenvironmental movement during this period of time.Rachel Carson's well-known bookSilent Spring was one of the extraordinary publications of that time and brought greater degree of environmental awareness among ordinary people by warning them of the dangers to all natural systems including animals and food chain from the misuse ofchemical pesticides such asDDT. Whilst Carson undoubtedly contributed to public debate at the time she was arguably not amongst the more radical 'social revolutionaries' who were also urging greater public awareness ofenvironmental issues.[7] Moreover, a number of the largest well-knownenvironmental non-governmental organizations such as theWorld Wildlife Fund (1961),Friends of the Earth (1969), andGreenpeace (1971) were founded during that time.[6]Climate security is an extension of environmental security.
The second notable development which brings the emergence of concept of environmental security was number of scholars started to criticize the traditional notion of security and mainstream security debates in their work from 1970s by emphasizing its inability to handle environmental problems at national and international security level.[6] First commentators wereRichard Falk who published 'This Endangered Planet' (1971), and Harold and Margaret Sprout who wrote 'Toward a Politics of Planet Earth' (1971). These two commentators asserted in their book that the notion of security can no longer be centered only on military power, rather nations should collectively take measurements against common environmental problems since they pose threat to national well-being and thus international stability. These main ideas about environmental interdependence between countries and common security threat have remained key themes of environmentalsecurity studies.[6][8] However, not until Richard Ullman publishes an academic article named "Redefining Security" (1983), radical departure from the dominant security discourse haven't happened. Ullman offered the following definition of national security threat as "an action or sequence of events that (1) threatens drastically and over a relatively brief span of time to degrade the quality of life for the inhabitants of a state, or (2) threatens significantly to narrow the range of policy choices available to the government of a state, or to private, nongovernmental entities within the state".[9] Significant other scientists onward also linked the issue of security by focusing on the role of environmental degradation in causing violent conflict. Others, while recognizing the importance of environmental problems, argued that labeling them 'environmental security' was problematic and abandoned analytical rigor for normative and emotional power.[10]
Even thoughenvironmental degradation andclimate change sometimes cause violent conflict within and between countries and other times not,[11] it can weaken the national security of the state in number of profound ways.Environmental change can undermine the economic prosperity which plays big role in country's military capacity and material power. In somedeveloped countries, and in mostdeveloping countries,natural resources andenvironmental services tend to be important factors foreconomic growth andemployment rate. Income from and employment in primary sectors such asagriculture,forestry,fishing, andmining, and from environmentally dependent services liketourism, may all be adversely affected byenvironmental change. Ifnatural capital base of an economy erodes, then so does the long-term capacity of its armed forces.[6][12] Moreover, changes in environmental condition can exposes people to health threats, it can also underminehuman capital and its well-being which are essential factors ofeconomic development and stability ofhuman society.
Climate change also could, through extreme weather events, have a more direct impact onnational security by damaging critical infrastructures such asmilitary bases, naval yards and training grounds, thereby severely threatening essential national defense resources.[13]
A 2025 study presented the first global quantitative analysis of the environmental impacts of armed conflict. Combining data from theEnvironmental Performance Index andUppsala Conflict Data Program, the study found that countries affected by armed conflict experience significantly lower environmental performance and that recovery can take 20 to 30 years.[14]
