Environmental Security: The case of Kiribati and Tuvalu
Introduction
Climate change is currently one of the most discussed global issues. Although some still negate this, this phenomenon has already altered the environment. This can be seen especially in two countries: Kiribati and Tuvalu. These small pacific states are expected to disappear in the coming decades as the ocean, with its rising sea levels, reclaims the narrow islands where tens of thousands of people live. While the consequences of human action on the biosphere are relatively recent, the discussions on climate change go as far back as the 1970s. Both IR scholars and politicians have discussed the environment as not only a single subject of transnational responsibility, but also as part of a broader security concept – which would surpass the traditional state-centric view.
This research article seeks to explore the debate regarding environmental security in the case of Kiribati and Tuvalu. In this article, I argue that climate change is both a national security threat for Kiribati and Tuvalu and a direct menace to their populations. This work is divided into four sections: the first will elaborate on the history of security’s enlargement to include environmental issues. The second, aims to investigate the situation of the pacific states in its fight for survival against rising sea levels and their future prospects. The third, will discuss the environment as part of a security debate – environmental security – and its implication both for Kiribati and Tuvalu and international politics.
The Enlargement of Security for the Inclusion of the Environment
Security, according to a general International Relations (IR) interpretation, is “the absence of threats to scarce values” (Evans and Newnham, 1998, p. 490). Traditionally, security analysis from a foreign policy context mostly focuses on a military dimension. This is because threats of war and conflict raise steep challenges for the national security of states and their leaders. Since the end of the Cold War, the concept of security has undergone a burgeoning process, which encompasses an inclusion of ideas such as the environment. One example of an early attempt to bring environmental concerns to the security field was the discussion of a ‘nuclear winter’ and its impact on the globe. The transnational consequences of environmental issues brought Evans and Newnham to claim that “strategies based upon narrow state-centric views are ultimately self-defeating in environmental policy making” (1998, p. 491).
The process of environmental incorporation in security was first addressed in 1972, during the United Nations Conference on Human Environment. This was followed by the Brundtland Report (1987), which placed the environment on the political agenda for the coming decades (Castro, 2013). The agenda was then developed further in 1992, where the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) inaugurated international negotiations for climate change (Lucena and Schaeffer, 2012).
There are two pivotal reasons for environmental concern, and subsequently the need for environmental inclusion in world politics, these are climate change and environmental degradation. The scale of human activity in the biosphere, as well as the rapidly growing scientific understanding of these processes, have both changed our understanding of humanity’s role in the biosphere and made clear the need for policies to deal with our rapidly changing circumstances (Steffen et al 2011). Since the 1980’s, together with the ‘nuclear winter’, the global atmosphere has become a focal point of environmental discussions. Dalby illuminates this change in attitude towards the environment, stating: “putting these concerns with acid rain, ozone depletion and then concerns about climate change together raised awareness and political concern about global environmental matters with enough urgency to get them considered as a matter of global security.” (2013, p. 166).
While progress has been made to include environmental issues in security and international agendas, some countries have already dealt with this phenomenon for decades. These countries, including Kiribati and Tuvalu, are at the forefront of a war for their own survival. This war has no guns, soldiers or visible enemies, although the responsible actors for this conflict are humans.
The Case of Kiribati and Tuvalu
Kiribati and Tuvalu are two archipelagos composed of dozens of islands and atolls in the Pacific Ocean. Besides these similar characteristics, they have one element in common: both are expected by scientists and researchers to disappear in the near future. Kiribati is one of the lowest lying countries on earth, with an average height of only two meters above sea level. The rising sea levels threaten the islands by reclaiming the land for the sea. Flooding is common during storms. However, climate change is augmenting this frequency. As a result, this phenomenon has been dealt as a matter of national priority for the local government. According to government officials, apart from the higher sea levels, the rising frequency of floods can generate sanitation problems, such as contamination of the drinkable water. The state’s fate is sealed, the Kiribati’s government has already purchased land in neighbouring Fiji for future evacuation of its population (DW Documentary, 2017).
By its turn, the little-known Tuvalu is the fourth smallest country in the world, with only twenty-six square kilometres of area, and has a population of only thirteen thousand citizens. The highest point is only four meters above sea level, and the main island, Funafati, has an extension of only ten kilometres. Scientists believe Tuvalu is going to be the first country that is going to disappear from the world. This “paradise on extinction” faces the same rising sea levels as Kiribati. Although, Tuvalu is a comparatively smaller and much less populated country, subsequently with fewer resources to fight against its slowing death as a nation. It is thought that when the ocean finally submerges the archipelago, its population will migrate for either Australia or New Zealand. Tuvalu’s culture and beautiful beaches will cease to exist.
The serious hazard of climate change for these nations is direct and powerful: liquidation by sea. As a consequence, Kiribati and Tuvalu have their national security threatened, even if not by state-actors and its respective military force. Thereby their diplomatic priority is calling the international community to action for this global problem. This is done regularly via international forums and media. As an example, the then Prime Minister of Tuvalu, Saufatu Sopoanga, made a speech as early as 2002 in order to bring up concern and global response on his country situation: “We want the islands of Tuvalu, our nation, to exist permanently forever and not to be submerged underwater merely due to the selfishness and greed of the industrialised world.” (Sopoanga, cited in Hough 2015).
It is clear that climate change is directly affecting Kiribati and Tuvalu’s ability to survive as states, and thus, constitutes a serious national security threat. Furthermore, as Buzan and Hansen (2009) concluded, environmental issues are already part of security debates. However, this dispute on whether the environment is part of security is yet to be resolved. Is the environment – and, consequently, climate change – a valid part of security?
Climate Change: A Security Problem
In the IR field, the “security” label is usually associated with a militarised and state-centric view. This is the traditional outlook of national security, grounded on more long-established principles and customs in both international security and relations. However, there are some who defy this logic by arguing in favour of abandoning the focus on the state and bringing other forms of threat into debate – such as climate change. As a result, debate on environmental security can easily oppose different schools of thought, going as far as the definition of its basic term. Therefore, it becomes crucial to adopt a definition of security before proceeding.
This work’s definition of security is “the absence of threats to scarce values” (Evans and Newnham, 1998, p. 490). In this case Kiribati and Tuvalu’s scarce resources are land, consequently affecting their societies. Nevertheless, because this threat it is not human it cannot for traditionalists constitute a national security threat. I argue that climate change is not only a national security threat for these countries, but it is also a direct menace for its population.
In 1980, the Independent Commission on International Development Issues gave support to securitising the environment. Two years later, UN Commission on Disarmament and Security considered moving beyond collective security to “common security”, bringing subjects such as environmental degradation and scarcity to discussion. This inclusion then eventually led to the 2009 UNGA resolution “Climate Change and its Possible Security Implications”, which called for all UN agencies to focus on climate change (Hough, 2015). This proved that the UN not only considered environmental security a valid part of unilateral/national security, but also of collective security.
NATO followed the United Nations’ perspective on environmental security. Its new extended security concept incorporated concerns shared by the UN: “Based on a broad definition of security that recognizes the importance of political, economic, social and environmental factors, NATO is addressing security challenges emanating from the environment. This includes extreme weather conditions, depletion of natural resources, pollution and so on – factors that can ultimately lead to disasters, regional tensions and violence” (NATO, cited in Hough, 2015).
Conclusion
Climate change is no longer a theoretical possibility. It is a real transnational phenomenon that is directly threatening countries – especially Kiribati and Tuvalu. The environment is a collective security issue since it will, given enough time, affect all countries directly (rising sea levels, global warming and its effects on agriculture, etc) and/or indirectly (migration from disappearing countries, overpopulation, environmental degradation and conflicts, etc). This is especially the case if we consider the definition of security related to the scarcity of values/resources.
The cases of Kiribati and Tuvalu represent convincing evidence of the future ahead. As climate change and its effects advance other low-lying countries will have to face, in both short and medium term, the consequences of human action in the biosphere. Considering the transnational and global character of climate change, environmental security will also need to be addressed as such.
Global action is needed in order to fight climate change. Kiribati and Tuvalu’s lonely voices against climate change – and, ultimately, against their countries’ extinction – must be heard and transmuted into action before it is too late. Although progress was made in recent decades by bringing environmental security to high politics, this transnational phenomenon will affect the whole world in the near future. What is at stake is not only the future of these two pacific states, but humanity itself. Climate change is a threat to all kinds of securities, from a traditional interpretation to the “new” concepts of environmental security. The question that remains is: by the time we take significant action, will it be too late?
References
Buzan, B. and Hansen, L. (2009). The Evolution of International Security Studies. Cambridge University Press.
Castro, T. (2013). Mudanças climáticas e seus impactos nas relações econômicas internacionais. In: T. Knirsch, ed., Economia verde, 1st ed. Rio de Janeiro: Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, pp. 37-50.
Dalby, S. (2002). Environmental Security. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Dalby, S. (2013). Global Environmental Security. In: R. Falkner, ed., The handbook of Global Climate and Environment Policy, 1st ed. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 163-178.
DW Documentary (2017). Kiribati: a drowning paradise in the South Pacific. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZ0j6kr4ZJ0 (Accessed: 25 November 2020)
Evans, G. and Newnham, J. (1998). Dictionary of International Relations. London: Penguin Books.
Fran, A. (2013). Não conta lá em casa: uma viagem pelos destinos mais polêmicos do mundo. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Record.
Hough, P. (2015). Environmental Security. In: Hough, P., Malik, S., Moran, A. and Pilbeam, B., International Security Studies: Theory and Practice, 1st ed. New York: Routledge, pp. 211-224.
Lucena, A. and Schaeffer, R. (2012). Mudanças do clima e economia verde. In: T. Knirsch, ed., Caminhos para a sustentabilidade, 1st ed. Rio de Janeiro: Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, pp. 31-51.
Pettiford, L. and Hughes, N. (2015). Human, National and Environmental Security in Latin America: Brazil and Bolivia. In: Hough, P., Malik, S., Moran, A. and Pilbeam, B., International Security Studies: Theory and Practice, 1st ed. New York: Routledge, pp. 410-418.
UN Documents. General Assembly Resolution 66/290. Available on: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N11/476/22/PDF/N1147622.pdf?OpenElement. (Accessed: 26 December 2020)
