Securitizing Climate Change

Transcription

1 Securitizing Climate Change Paper prepared for the XXI IPSA World Congress of Political Science Santiago de Chile, July 12-16, 2009 Rafaela R. Brito 1 University of Coimbra Portugal ABSTRACT Climate change is increasingly being viewed as a threat to security. The aim of this article is twofold: first, to demonstrate that climate change is now a securitized issue; and second, to examine the theoretical and practical implications of moving climate change to the security level. More specifically, it tries to determine if securitizing climate change is an effective way to deal with this problem and its effects. Using the Copenhagen School s concept of Securitization as framework, the relevant security-based discourse and its policy effects are analyzed. This paper argues that it is more advantageous to securitize climate change because it raises the political awareness and sense of urgency required to resolve environmental problems and promote security. At the same time, it does not necessarily militarize the issue, nor does it restrict the range of means available to fight it. 1 Masters Candidate in International Relations Peace and Security Studies Contact: rbrito@student.fe.uc.pt 1

2 Introduction In recent years, climate change has been progressively re-conceptualized as a threat to security by a number of actors. At the present, it is not unusual to come across political or academic discourse that addresses the security implications of climate change. Using the European Union (EU) as a case study, this paper seeks to examine the mechanisms that have been elevating climate change to the level of security or, in other words, analyze the construction of climate change as a security issue. Additionally, the paper addresses the implications of the securitization of climate change, specifically in terms of politics adopted to tackle the issue. To accomplish this two-fold aim, the concept of securitization developed by the Copenhagen authors (Wæver, 1995; Buzan, Wæver and Wilde, 1998) is essential as it provides a useful analytical tool to understand the mechanisms through which issues are moved to the sphere of security. The argument of this paper proceeds in two stages. First it is argued that climate change is at present a securitized issue in the realm of the EU. In this stage, the paper will seek to demonstrate that the process of securitization of climate change is confirmed in the EU by the existence of a securitizing move and by the acceptance of the relevant audience. The second stage of the argument claims that although this securitization is demonstrable, extraordinary measures have not been adopted, at least not in the traditional sense. It is verifiable that the securitization of climate change did not generate traditional security strategies to address climate change. The paper will attempt to demonstrate that instead, what securitization created was an increased character of urgency attributed to climate change. The research in the paper will develop in two distinct but interconnected moments. First, the dynamics of the securitization of climate change in the EU will be analysed. In this phase, the securitizing move performed by the European institutions and individual Member-states (securitizing actors) will be examined through discourse analysis. Subsequently, the acceptance by the 2

3 European public opinion (audience) will be assessed through the analysis of opinion studies and the media. In the second phase of the research, the measures defined for tackling climate change will be analyzed through the analysis of reports, plans of action, political directives and legislation. Securitization Theory The development of the concept of securitization by the Copenhagen authors gave an important contribution to security studies. The distinctive feature of the concept is that it enables the understanding of the mechanisms trough which issues are elevated to the security level. The authors propose a spectrum along which public issues can be located. In one end, we find non-politicized issues, i. e. issues that states do not deal with and which are not made part of the public debate and decision-making process. In the center of the spectrum, politicized issues refer to those which are part of public policy, requiring government decision and resource allocation. Finally, in the other end of the spectrum, we find securitized issues, which are presented as existential threats, thus requiring emergency measures and justifying actions outside the normal bounds of political procedure. Securitization occurs when an issue is successfully moved from politicized to the securitized end of the spectrum (Buzan, Wæver and de Wilde, 1998: 23-24). The authors propose a two-stage process of securitization. In the first stage, the securitizing actor performs a securitizing move by presenting something as an existential threat to a referent object. In the second stage of the process, the relevant audience accepts the securitizing move. The acceptance by the audience is a fundamental element in the securitization theory as it is this acceptance that legitimizes extraordinary measures. In respect to this Buzan, Wæver and de Wilde state: 3

4 We do not push the demand so high as to say that emergency measure has to be adopted, only that the existential threat has to be argued and just gain enough resonance for a platform to be made from which it is possible to legitimize emergency measures or other steps that would not have been possible had the discourse not taken the form of existential threats, point of no return, and necessity. (Buzan, Wæver and de Wilde, 1998: 25) In the securitization approach three types of units are involved: referent objects, securitizing actors and functional actors. Referent objects are defined as things that are seen to be existentially threatened and that have a legitimate claim to survival. Securitizing actors are actors who securitize issues by declaring something a referent object existentially threatened. And finally, functional actors are defined as actors who affect the dynamics of a specific sector significantly influencing decisions in the field of security (Buzan, Wæver and de Wilde, 1998: 36). The authors identify facilitating conditions to securitization, i. e. conditions under which the speech act works, in contrast to cases in which the act does not succeed. Such conditions fall into two categories that combine in a successful speech act: the internal, linguistic-grammatical and the external, contextual and social. The authors argue the most important internal condition to the speech act is to follow the security form, the grammar of security, and construct a plot that includes existential threat, point of no return, and a possible way out (1998: 32). As to the external aspect of a speech act, the authors identify two main conditions. One is the social capital of the enunciator, the securitizing actor, who must be in a position of authority. Hence, the relationship between speaker and audience determines the likelihood of the audience to accept the claims made in a securitizing attempt. The other external condition identified has to do with the features of the alleged threats that either facilitate or impede securitization (Buzan, Wæver and de Wilde, 1998: 33). 4

5 What Referent Object for Climate Security? As defined previously, referent objects are things that are seen to be existentially threatened and that have a legitimate claim to survival. With respect to climate change, the environment as such can be identified as the referent object of security. Nonetheless, Buzan, Wæver and de Wilde stress that the preservation of existing levels of civilization is the predominant concern in much of the debate around environment and security (1998: 75). This leads them to conclude that the ultimate referent object of environmental security is the risk of losing achieved levels of civilization [ ] while apparently being able to prevent doing so (Buzan, Wæver and de Wilde, 1998: 75, italics in the original). Although the EU recognizes the environment, or the global ecosystem, as something to be protected, it is reasonable to say that most securitizing moves aim at securing the standards of living of the European and the stability of the EU itself. As the paper will demonstrate ahead, the EU s securitizing actors main concern is about climate change s impact in international stability, world economy, energy security and migratory pressures. In these actors view, European interests are directly affected by climate change, which will not only affect the natural environment but also sections of society and the economy. Securitization Step I The Climate Securitizing Move As the language of security pervades the speech on climate change in the EU, it becomes necessary to understand if this constitutes a conscious securitizing move. This paper focuses on governmental actors role as securitizing actors. Although the existence of influent securitizing actors on the non-governmental arena - NGOs, think thanks and pressure groups who largely influence the process of securitization is recognized, the paper concentrates on governmental actors at the EU and national level as they have the authority to implement both security and environmental policies. This group of securitizing actors comprises 5

6 the European institutions, namely the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, and also individual memberstates. The European institutions are increasingly using rhetoric of security to address climate change. Recent documents address the security implications of climate change. Notably, the 2008 review of the European Security Strategy (ESS) approved by the European Council of December 2008 adds Climate Change to the list of key threats to Europe s security. The document states that in 2003, the ESS already identified the security implications of climate change. Five years on, this has taken on a new urgency (Council of the European Union, 2008: 5). According to the Report, Natural disasters, environmental degradation and competition for resources exacerbate conflict, especially in situations of poverty and population growth, with humanitarian, health, political and security consequences, including greater migration. Climate change can also lead to disputes over trade routes, maritime zones and resources previously inaccessible. (Council of the European Union, 2008: 5) The evolution in the significance of Climate Change in the ESS was stimulated by the joint report of the EU High Representative and the European Commission to the European Council, Climate Change and International Security. This report, published in March 2008, addresses the impact of climate change on international security and depicts climate change as a threat multiplier which exacerbates existing trends, tensions and instability (European Commission, 2008: 2). For both the High Representative and the European Commission, the risks posed by Climate Change are not merely of humanitarian character, they also include political and security risks that directly affect European interests (European Commission, 2008: 2). The Report identifies the main threats posed by Climate Change, namely violent conflict over resources, negative economic impacts, risk to coastal cities and critical infrastructure, loss of territory, border disputes, environmentally-induced migration, political and social fragility, tension over energy supply and pressure 6

7 on international governance (European Commission, 2008: 3-5). Moreover, the Report argues that addressing Climate Change entails a preventive security policy. It states: Investment in mitigation ( ) as well as ways to adapt to the unavoidable should go hand in hand with addressing the international security threats created by climate change; both should be viewed as part of preventive security policy (European Commission, 2008: 1) A resolution approved by the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the European Parliament in September 2008, reiterates the conclusions of the joint report on Climate Change and International Security. In the Committee s view, climate change is becoming the biggest security threat in today's world (European Parliament, 2008: 3). The Committee argues climate change should be central to Europe's preventive security policy (European Parliament, 2008: 3). Individual member-states have also had an important role in elevating the profile of climate change. Notably the United Kingdom, Germany and France have been active in pushing climate change to the realm of security. The United Kingdom and France have even included climate change as a pressing issue in their respective national security strategies and Germany is also on the way of doing so. On March 2008, the UK published its first National Security Strategy, under Prime Minister Gordon Brown s leadership. The National Security Strategy of the United Kingdom: Security in an interdependent world identifies climate change as a driver of insecurity, i.e. factors which can drive insecurity, instability, or conflict (Cabinet Office, 2008: 16). The document clearly states Climate change is potentially the greatest challenge to global stability and security, and therefore to national security. Tackling its causes, mitigating its risks and preparing for and dealing with its consequences are critical to our future security [ ] (Cabinet Office, 2008: 18) 7

8 Besides being acknowledged as a driver of insecurity in itself, climate change is also viewed as an important element of exacerbation to other global challenges such as competition for energy resources, demographic pressures, and food and water insecurity. It is worth noting that in the first UK National Security Strategy one can find the expression climate change mentioned 43 times. At the same time, terrorism ( counter-terrorism included) is mentioned 52 times, `weapons of mass destruction ( wmd included) appears 10 times and the word nuclear is mentioned 25 times. In June 2008, the government of France published The French White Paper on Defence and National Security. Here, climate change is portrayed as a new risk that needs to be dealt with on a global scale and whose security impacts need to be measured long in advance. According to the document, global warming, along with other damage to the biosphere, constitutes a type of disorder caused by rising energy consumption and a growing demand for natural resources (Ministère de la Défense, 2008: 25). The White Paper highlights the need to protect both population and national territory from unintentional risks such as highly lethal health crises, natural disasters made more intense by environmental and climate changes (Ministère de la Défense, 2008: 66). When addressing the role of collective and regional security organizations, the White Paper argues these institutions should deal with climate change. It is argued that Collective security also implies concerted action and regulation in the fields of international public health, conflict prevention, development assistance and the fight against poverty, preserving the environment and combating the consequences of climate change [ ] (Ministère de la Défense, 2008: 113). The document also envisages an evolution in civil defense and protection capabilities in order to take greater account of the projected change in the scale of risks, including those posed by climate change (Ministère de la Défense, 2008: 220). 8

9 Although Germany did not adopt yet a National Security Strategy, in May 2008 the German CDU/CSU Parliamentary Group approved a security strategy paper entitled A Security Strategy for Germany. The document outlines the parliamentary group s vision for a German national security strategy. In the paper, climate change figures among the key challenges and strategic objectives. It reads: Climate change is not only an environmental or energy issue it also presents a security threat. The first effects of climate change are already visible and flooding, heat waves, food crises, droughts, forest fires and rising sea levels are all on the increase and if we are unable to counteract these developments the number of conflicts will multiply. (CDU/CSU Fraktion im Deutschen Bundestag, 2008: 6) The Parliamentary Group argues that Germany s security policy must be in a position to address the impact of climate change and contribute to managing the consequences this has for our security (CDU/CSU Fraktion im Deutschen Bundestag, 2008: 6). Member-states governments have also played a securitizing role internationally, pushing for the elevation of climate change to the security level outside Europe. The UK government played a crucial role in taking climate change to the United Nations Security Council. During its Presidency of the Security Council, the UK called the Council s first-ever meeting on the impact of climate change on April The former-british Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett, who chaired the session, argued that climate change was a security issue although not one of narrow national security. She asserted Climate Change was about our collective security in a fragile and increasingly interdependent world (United Nations Department of Public Information, 2007). The former-foreign Secretary stated The Security Council is the forum to discuss issues that threaten the peace and security of the international community. What makes wars start? Fights over water. Changing patterns of rainfall. Fights over food production, land use... There are few greater potential threats to our economies too... but also to peace and security itself (BBC News, 2007). 9

10 European member-states were also responsible for studies that contributed to the conceptualization of climate change as a threat to security. One of the most notable examples is the study by the German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU), a scientific advisory body set up by the German Federal Government. World in Transition - Climate Change as a Security Risk, which became a widespread reference on this topic, clearly identifies climate change as threat to security, stating that without resolute counteraction, climate change will overstretch many societies adaptive capacities within the coming decades ( ) jeopardizing national and international security to a new degree (WBGU, 2007: 1). The WBGU study identifies six threats to international stability and security posed by climate change, namely the increase in the number of weak and fragile states; risks for global economic development; risks of growing international distributional conflicts; risks to human rights and the industrialized countries legitimacy as global governance actors; triggering and intensification of migration; and overstretching of classic security policy (WBGU, 2007). Securitization Step II Acceptance by the Audience The paper has so far demonstrated that the discourse on climate change from the EU institutions and individual Member-states (securitizing actors) has taken the form of existential threats. However, for an issue to be securitized, it is essential that an audience accepts it as such. This corresponds to the second stage of the process of securitization. The paper will now seek to evaluate to what extent the European public opinion consents the moving of climate change to the security level. One of the most efficient vehicles of spreading leaders discourses is the mass media. The media play a crucial role both in forming and in reflecting public opinion. In relation to climate change, European media have increasingly published news reflecting the governmental speech on climate change, as well 10

11 as the drivers at the EU level. This paper considers media coverage of climate change in the three above mentioned states UK, Germany and France to measure public awareness of the security implications of climate change. Recently, European media has displayed alarming climate related headlines: Climate change 'our greatest threat' (Guardian.co.uk, 2004); Climate change a bigger security threat than terrorism, says report (The Guardian, 2006); Global warming could trigger a global civil war (Le Monde, 2007) Climate change: Threat for the world peace (Die Zeit, 2007); Climate change will lead to warfare over food and water (The Times, 2008); Climate threatens European security (Financial Times, 2008). In the European media one can find, over the last few years, a very expressive number of news that portray climate change as a threat to security. A large amount of those news predicted climate change to be a widespread cause for conflict. 2 Some news even suggest that current existing conflicts are climaterelated. 3 One can also find a significant number of reports that compare the threat of climate change to that of global terrorism to highlight the dimension of the threat. 4 A few articles even make a comparison between climate change and weapons of mass destruction. 5 Many news focused on climate refugees, 2 Governments must invest more in preventing climate change-related conflict or else face myriad crises around the world as global warming triggers disputes and exacerbates existing insecurity. (Financial Times, 2007a); climate change could spawn a new era of conflicts around the world * + (The Guardian, 2007a); global warming could cause a "global civil war" by exacerbating latent tensions * + (Le Monde, 2007). 3 The conflict in Darfur has been driven by climate change and environmental degradation, which threaten to trigger a succession of new wars across Africa (The Guardian, 2007b). 4 The effects of climate change *...+ have long-term security implications far greater than those of terrorism (The Guardian, 2006); The new US military report *...+ lays out strong support for a link between climate change and terrorism (Financial Times, 2007b). 5 Climate change is a weapon of mass destruction and far more real than the ones they been vainly combing Iraq for (Guardian.co.uk, 2004). 11

12 warning on the likelihood of climate change to originate mass migration, posing subsequently a threat to security in the receiving countries. 6 On the specific issue of climate change as a security threat, no study has yet been conducted to survey European public opinion. However, there are some studies which are useful to understand the evolution of European perceptions on climate change. A special Eurobarometer, requested by the European Commission and the European Parliament, surveyed Europeans' attitudes towards climate change. The study, carried out from March to May 2008, demonstrates that 62% of Europeans believes climate change/global warming is the most serious problem currently facing the world as a whole. Climate change ranks second after poverty, the lack of food and drinking water which 68% of Europeans consider to be a major problem. International terrorism ranked below climate change with 53% of the respondents considering it one of the most serious problems (European Commission, 2008b: 7). The survey shows that at the country level, absolute majorities in nearly all countries regard "global warming/climate change" as a serious problem (European Commission, 2008b: 9). When we consider only respondents first answer, global warming / climate change becomes the first on the list of serious problems in the world, with 30%. Poverty, the lack of food and drinking water falls to the second position with 29% and international terrorism comes in third with 17% (European Commission, 2008b: 11). The survey concluded that 65% of the Europeans do not agree that the seriousness of climate change has been exaggerated, as opposed to the 26% that believe it has (European Commission, 2008b: 24). This is very significant if we take into account that climate change has been increasingly presented to European citizens as a threat to security. Acknowledging that climate change s 6 Hundreds of millions of environmental refugees will seek new places to live (...) security services will be challenged increasingly by the number of refugees (The Times, 2008); What Will Become of Tuvalu's Climate Refugees? (Spiegel Online, 2007); In ten years, climate refugees will count in the millions, most victims of global warming (L Express.fr, 2008). 12

13 seriousness has not been exaggerated, could indicate that Europeans accept the securitizing move. Standard Eurobarometer 70 published on December 2008 shows that 23% of the Europeans would like most of the EU s budget to be spent on climate change and environmental protection, while 17% would like it to be spent in defense and security (European Commission, 2008c: 68). Another interesting indicator is the willingness of Europeans to pay higher costs for green energy as a way of contributing to climate change s reduction. The Eurobarometer poll indicates that 44% of Europeans affirm they would be ready to pay between 1% and 30% more for green energy, against 30% who would not (European Commission, 2008b: 68). This willingness to pay a higher energy price to tackle climate change could indicate Europeans accept extraordinary measures to address the issue. Securitization Facilitated The success of the securitizing moves performed by the actors identified is being facilitated by a number of factors. As mentioned previously, Buzan, Wæver and de Wilde identify facilitating conditions under which the speech act has more probability of succeeding. Such conditions fall into two categories that combine in a successful speech act: the internal, linguistic-grammatical and the external, contextual and social (1998: 32). The authors argue the most important internal condition of the speech act is to follow the grammar of security and construct a plot that includes existential threat, point of no return, and a possible way out (Buzan, Wæver and de Wilde, 1998: 33). The attempt of constructing climate change as a security threat in the EU has followed these conditions. Climate change has been presented by the securitizing actors as an existential threat, which if not addressed may reach a point of no return. For the EU this is materialized in the limit of 2ºC increase in 13

14 the average global temperature, beyond which it is claimed that the effects of climate change would be irreversible. Also, climate change is presented as a threat to which a possible way out exists and this refers mostly to mitigation. In other words, although there is still no scientific consensus on whether climate change is anthropogenic, the securitizing actors have presented it as being so and, consequently, also stoppable through human action. This claim has been widely accepted by the audience as 60% of the Europeans agree that climate change is a problem which can be solved, while only 31% believe that the process of climate change is unstoppable (European Commission, 2008b: 24). Regarding the external aspect of the speech act, the authors identify two main conditions. The first is the social capital of the enunciator. According to this condition, securitization is successful when the securitizing actor is in a position of authority Buzan, Wæver and de Wilde, 1998: 33). Both European institutions and the national governments are in a position of formal leadership and political authority. The second external condition identified by Buzan, Wæver and de Wilde refers to the features of the alleged threats that either facilitate or impede securitization (1998: 33). With respect to climate change, securitization has been facilitated by the recurrence of extreme weather events and the diffusion of a scientific discourse that links those events to climate change. A paradigmatic case was Hurricane Katrina on August 2005, one of the strongest and most devastating hurricanes to hit the United States. The devastation caused by Katrina spurred international debate over climate change s potential to cause natural disasters. In the specific case of Europe, extreme weather events have also raised public awareness. The summer of 2003 registered record heat waves across Europe causing high mortality. In subsequent summers many European countries have registered high temperatures with major impacts on public health. The contribution of unusually high temperatures to the proliferation of severe 14

15 summer fires across Europe has led Greek authorities to argue that these are a consequence of climate change. In recent years many European countries have also experienced severe flooding, notably in the summer of 2002, with the catastrophic floods along the Danube and Elbe rivers, and in In addition, it is feasible that the academic discourse that links climate change to conflict has also contributed to the securitization of climate change. Although it did not focus on climate change, the work of Thomas Homer-Dixon and his team was a paramount as it ignited the debate on environmental issues potential to violent conflict. Much has been written on the links between climate change and conflict but we draw attention to the publications of issue 26 of the Journal Political Geography entirely dedicated to Climate Change and Conflict. The existence of a securitizing move and the acceptance by the audience, facilitated by the conditions presented indicates that climate change securitization is underway in the EU. We do not argue that this is a completed process, but without doubt climate change is in the process of achieving a successful securitization. What Measures for Climate Security? The paper has sought to demonstrate how the process of securitization of climate change is taking place in the EU. It will now address the consequences of using such framework of security. To achieve this, it is fundamental to understand the measures proposed in the documents that attempt to securitize climate change. When analyzing these documents, it becomes clear that these fall mainly into three categories: research and monitoring; adaptation; and mitigation. As for the first category, the paper on Climate Change and International Security by the High Representative and the European Commission recommends enhancing EU's capacities of research, analysis, monitoring and 15

16 early warning (European Commission, 2008: 10). The European Security Strategy also focuses on the need to improve analysis and early warning capabilities (European Council, 2008: 5). The WBGU recommends the development of global information and early warning systems as major contributions to conflict and crisis prevention (WBGU, 2007: 9-11). Adaptation is also a widespread recognized measure to deal with the security implications of climate change. The joint paper by the High Representative and the European Commission proposes further integrating adaptation and resilience to climate change into EU regional strategies with special attention to the most vulnerable regions and potential climate security hot spots (European Commission, 2008: 11). The WBGU study advises the adoption of adaptation measures as a strategy to prevent conflict in developing countries (WBGU, 2007: 9). Mitigation measures are urged in all the documents analyzed. The paper on Climate Change and International Security proposes that the EU strengthens its leadership towards an ambitious post-2012 agreement (European Commission, 2008: 11). The WBGU study defines mitigation strategies as measures for conflict prevention and recommends that Germany and the EU ambitiously pursue international climate policy, gearing the Kyoto Protocol towards the long term. The study also calls for the implementation of an energy turnaround in the EU, with ambitious reduction targets, increased energy efficiency and the expanded use of renewable energies (WBGU, 2007: 8). The measures proposed by the UK security strategy also focus mitigation, advocating changes in energy policies, reduction in global carbon emissions and sustainable energy consumption (Cabinet Office, 2008: 50). The analysis of these documents calls into question the widespread notion that securitization of environmental issues inevitably invites a state-centred approach. 7 All the documents focus international cooperation as a mean to 7 On this subject see: Græger, Nina (1996) Environmental Security?, Journal of Peace Research. 33 (1):

17 achieve climate security. The German CDU/CSU security strategy argues that supporting developing countries in adjusting to climate change and coping with environmental damage must become an integral component of development cooperation (CDU/CSU, 2008); The Report on the implementation of ESS also identifies Climate Change as a key priority in international multilateral negotiations (Council of the European Union, 2008: 12). Moreover, although the documents push for a securitization of climate change, they do not call for a militarization of the issue as the strategies they present to tackle climate change do not have a military nature. There is however a role envisaged for the military, but this is mainly in the development of instruments for crisis management and disaster response (European Commission, 2008: 10). EU Action on Climate Change in a Security Framework It is also fundamental to understand to what extent the framework of security influences EU s action against climate. It is visible that although climate change is now widely viewed through a security framework, EU action on climate change continues to be played on two major fronts: mitigation to limit the temperature increase and adaptation action to deal with the unavoidable impacts of climate change. Nevertheless, this does not mean that EU action was not affected by the new framework. Both fronts have incorporated a security dimension which invests them with greater urgency. As High Representative Solana puts it, both mitigation and adaptation should go hand in hand with addressing the international security threats of climate change. Both should also be seen as preventive security policy (Solana, 2008). The mind-set of security has added pressure on the need to take actions to mitigate climate change. With respect to this, High Representative Solana pointed out that saying that climate change poses security risks reinforces the 17

18 need to stick to [EU s] commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (Solana, 2008). The 2007 communication from the European Commission entitled Limiting Global Climate Change to 2 degrees Celsius frames the mitigation target within a security concern. According to the document strong scientific evidence shows that urgent action to tackle climate change is imperative ( ) a failure to act will have serious local and global security implications. (European Commission, 2007b: 3). The EU commitment with the reduction of its overall emissions to at least 20% below 1990 levels led to the adoption of the "Climate action and renewable energy package" in The security dimension is also visible in the European adaptation strategy outlined in the 2007 Green Paper and the 2009 White Paper. In the Green paper, this security dimension is integrated in the external dimension of adaptation, as assistance in adaptation to climate change in third countries is viewed as part of a conflict prevention strategy. The Green paper on adaptation reads: EU Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) has an important role to play in enhancing the EU's capacity to prevent and deal with conflicts such as border disputes and tensions over access to natural resources and natural disasters accentuated by climate change as well as their potential consequences such as forced migration and internal displacements of persons (European Commission, 2007a: 21). The White Paper on Adapting to Climate Change, which launches the EU Adaptation Framework, also includes a security dimension in the external action of the EU. Regarding EU s relations with third countries the document reads: Failure to adapt could have security implications. The EU is therefore strengthening its analysis and early warning systems and integrating climate change into existing tools such as conflict prevention mechanisms and security sector reform. The effects of climate change on migratory flows should also be considered in the 18

19 broader EU reflection on security, development and migration policies. (European Commission, 2009: 15-16) In the White Paper, the Commission recommends that adaptation is mainstreamed in the EU's external policies, particularly development cooperation, security and migration. This focus on the security impacts of climate change in developing countries materializes in the inclusion of climate change in EU s development policy. The EU Action Plan on Climate Change and Development aims at incorporating climate change into all aspects of EU development policy. The document outlines four strategic priorities regarding climate change in EU s development cooperation: raising the policy profile of climate change, support for adaptation, support for mitigation, and capacity development (European Commission, 2003). In this context, the EU is developing of a Global Climate Change Alliance between the European Union and poor developing countries most vulnerable to climate change, which will have a role in addressing the security implications of climate change (European Commission, 2008: 11). Conclusion Climate change is becoming increasingly securitized at the EU level. Using the mechanism of securitization proposed by the Copenhagen School it is possible to identify the actors and processes underlying the elevation of climate change to the security realm. However, although the process of climate change securitization is demonstrable in the EU, thus legitimizing extraordinary measures, these have not been adopted in the traditional sense, i. e. the securitization of climate change did not generate militarized strategies to address the issue. EU action on climate change continues to focus on mitigation and adaptation measures. 19

20 Nevertheless, the reframing of climate change as a security issue is having an impact in EU action on climate change. This is visible in the incorporation of security concerns into the existing strategies for tackling climate change, to invest them with a greater sense of urgency. It is sustainable to say that mitigation of and adaptation to climate change have now gained a dimension of preventive security policy in the realm of the EU. Thus, instead of generating traditional security strategies to address the issue, the securitization of climate change transformed the adaptation and mitigation strategies in security strategies. As the concept of securitization opens the possibility for non-traditional issues to become security issues, it is feasible that this broadening of security also allows for non-traditional security measures to be adopted as a mean to enhance security. As a result, acknowledging climate change is a security issue does not mean it has to be addressed through traditional security strategies. Accordingly, securitization does not restrict the means to address climate change as it leaves open the possibility for policy-makers to choose the most effective instruments. In light of this, it appears more advantageous to securitize climate change because it raises the political awareness and sense of urgency required to resolve environmental problems and promote security. At the same time, it becomes clear that the securitization of climate change does not necessarily militarize the issue, nor does it restrict the range of means available to fight it. As Brown, Hammill and McLeman so brilliantly put it, A securitized climate debate might be able to marshal sufficiently compelling arguments to encourage the politicians to do something about reducing emissions and investing (carefully) in adaptation. These are things the international community should be doing anyhow and, done well, are consistent with enhancing security and reducing the potential for conflict at all scales. So if securitization speeds their implementation, it will serve a useful purpose. (Brown, Hammill and McLeman, 2007: 1154) This could well be said of the EU. 20

21 References BBC News (2007) Security Council takes on global warming April 18, Brown, Oli; Hammill, Anne; and McLeman, Robert (2007) Climate change as the new security threat: implications for Africa, International Affairs. 83 (6), Buzan, Barry; Wæver, Ole; Wilde, Jaap de (1998) Security: a New Framework for Analysis. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Cabinet Office (2008) The National Security Strategy of the United Kingdom - Security in an interdependent world CDU/CSU Fraktion im Deutschen Bundestag (2008) A Security Strategy for Germany, Council of the European Union (2008) Report on the Implementation of the European Security Strategy - Providing Security in a Changing World Die Zeit (2007) Klimawandel: Gefahr für den Weltfrieden April 23, European Commission (2003) EU action plan on climate change and development European Commission (2007a) Adapting to climate change in Europe options for EU action European Commission (2007b) Limiting Global Climate Change to 2 degrees Celsius - The way ahead for 2020 and beyond European Commission (2008) Climate Change and International Security, 21

22 European Commission (2008b) Special Eurobarometer Europeans attitudes towards climate change European Commission (2008c) Standard Eurobarometer 70 European Commission (2009) Adapting to climate change: Towards a European framework for action, European Parliament (2008) Opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs for the Committee on Development on Building a Global Climate Change Alliance DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN Financial Times (2007a) UN warns on climate change-related conflict, December 11, Financial Times (2007b) Climate change 'a threat to security', April 17, Financial Times (2008) Climate threatens European security", March 11, Guardian.co.uk (2004) Climate change 'our greatest threat', 21 September. Le Monde (2007) Le réchauffement climatique pourrait déclencher une "guerre civile mondiale", December 10, Ministère de la Défense (2008) The French White Paper on Defence and National Security lancgb.pdf Solana, Javier (2008) Before the Flood. Guardian.co.uk, 10 March. Spiegel Online (2007) Islanders without an Island: What Will Become of Tuvalu's Climate Refugees?, September 14, 22

23 The Guardian (2006) Climate change a bigger security threat than terrorism, says report, 12 June. The Guardian (2007a) Climate change could lead to global conflict, says Beckett, May 11, The Guardian (2007b) Darfur conflict heralds era of wars triggered by climate change, UN report warns, June 23 The Times (2008) Climate change will lead to warfare over food and water, January United Nations Department of Public Information (2007) Security Council Holds First-Ever Debate on the Impact of Climate Change on Peace, Security, Hearing over 50 Speakers Wæver, Ole (1995) Securitization ad Desecuritization in Lipschutz, Ronnie D. (ed.) On Security. New York: Columbia University Press. WBGU: German Advisory Council on Global Change (2007) World in Transition Climate Change as a Security Risk Summary for Policy-Makers 23