Oxford University Press | Online Resource Centre

Choose your answers from a-d by clicking the radio button next to each choice and then press 'Submit' to get your score.

Question 1

In what ways, if any, can the environment be considered a security concern?

a) Environmental security entails considering the security of the global environment as well as its nested sub-systems and social systems beyond the boundaries of the nation state.

b) Environmental security is a critical security project in that it questions who and what is to be secured and from what threat by orthodox security policies or whether linkages between environmental, security and development issues can be made.

c) Environmental security is a practical endeavor to assess the extent environmental change causes violent conflict within and between countries and the ways in which environmental security can undermine national security.

d) All of the above. The environment is both an object to be secured and a source of risk although it may mean different things to different people. Whilst deepening the concept of security it has both critical and practical dimensions although the utility of the concept is contested.

Question 2

In what ways can the meanings and practice of security from an environmental perspective be discussed and in what ways did these discussions contribute to the development of 'environmental security' as a concept?

a) Reports into the contestation of the boundaries of the meaning and practice of national security sought to highlight the ability of national security institutions and the military to manage common environmental problem. Exclusionary security policies were only effective given budgetary allocations to respond to and to implement policies to protect biophysical systems from external threat.

b) National security interests were defined as an existential threat to a nation state which had the potential to constrain military choices. Environmental security was linked to military resource base and had purchase power with the orthodox policy community.

c) There were growing arguments that the international political system required multilateral initiatives to understand the meaning of, and collectively respond to, common environmental problems. Early recognition of the threats to international stability and national well-being contributed to the currency of environmental interdependence of common security concerns.

d) From the 1970s a number of environmental scientists developed an argument that environmental degradation was the product of violent conflict, however it was not until very much later that environmentally-induced warfare was conceived as being interrelated. Connections between the environment and security were still very much limited within a narrow traditional framework of security studies.

Question 3

In what ways did strategic circumstances have an effect on environmental security perspectives?

a) The end of the Cold War created the space for security policy and security studies to be re-considered in light of growing environmental consciousness underlined by multilateralism in policy action.

b) In 1973 the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) restricted oil supplies which underlined the industrial capacity of the military leaving a profound psychological impact requiring that security be linked to national interests: the securing of energy deals and the environment became related to military capability diplomacy.

c) Ideologically driven military security was replaced by a need to preserve territorial integrity in wake of the collapse of communism. Military security was a high priority given the threat of spill-over. The environment remained a peripheral concern to the security institutions occupied with the new security environment post-Cold War.

d) The end of the Cold War order created the intellectual space for the broadening of security issues beyond Cold War military mentalities. Research among political and environmental scientists discussed ways in which new security issues could be addressed. The plethora of publications produced, however, had little effect on policy.

Question 4

In what ways has the concept of environmental security been contested?

a) Analysis of environmental security is understood as the integrity of the whole ecological system whose primary threat is human activity. However it radically challenges security thinking in that it demands a shift in the reason for action from national security interest to the welfare of the entire social-ecological system of the planet.

b) Environmental security contends that the principle threat to the ecological integrity is human activity and therefore humans can be secured to the extent that welfare is protected at the domestic level. The reason for action is to be found in individual and national interests.

c) The cross-over of common insecurity issue areas is unlikely because not all problems are truly global. Not all states are equally responsible for environmental problems, nor is there such a thing as equality of risk. Systemic interdependence is unlikely to manage those security areas.

d) The ecological security and human security approaches to environmental security does not challenge the security community to consider alternative object of security. The ecological security displays continuity with major interpretations of security which centralizes the security of the state.

Question 5

In what ways has conflict been a concern of the environmental security agenda?

a) Environmental change can be a cause of war between countries, largely centered on resource scarcity interrelated with conflict. There is therefore a strong connection between environmental degradation and violence; resources as strategic goals and strategic tools may cause violence if there is inequity.

b) Population growth and its relationship to environmental degradation can lead to environmentally caused conflict. There is therefore a linear link between population growth and environmental change, and environmental change being the critical determinant in the production of violence.

c) Common findings in research organizations into environmental violence have failed to find quantifiable relationships between environmental and social variables and the cause of war. Analysis of aggregated data failed to establish a common causal mechanism. The extensity of possible variables being simply too vast, mitigating any definitive relationship.

d) Analysis of environmental violence research shows that there is a tendency among 'strong states' to be less prone to internal violent conflicts whereas states undergoing significant economic and political transitions are more prone to violent conflict. Environmental change is unlikely to be a cause of war but can be a contributory factor.

Question 6

Can environmental changes be reconciled with national security interests?

a) Environmental challenges to economic growth such as natural resources and employment leads to diversification and research which may in the long-term result in technological advancements which bolster military programs.

b) Environmental changes can undermine national security in many ways. It can weaken the economic base that determines military capacity. So if the natural capital base of an economy erodes than so does the long-term capacity of its armed forces. Any developments will be however 'human' in impact.

c) The environmental problems encountered by countries are principally internal. External threats remain within a country's control: external military threats will remain unchanged and a primary concern.

d) All of the above

Question 7

Can armed forces be linked to environmental security and in what ways?

a) Military warfare enhances the ability of people's access to resources and to aid the development in ecologically sustainable ways; it can secure access routes and rights that would otherwise be denied; rebuild infrastructure and equitable access of resources; the management of environmental problems; and also to bolster social institutions and cohesion.

b) It is when considering the military and the security institutions that some of the greatest contradictions with the concept of environmental security are raised. War impacts negatively on the sustainable growth of the nation but armed forces may be required to manage the effects.

c) Stronger militaries and technological advances have reduced the negative impact on the environment having greater impact with fewer materials, whilst the spectre of mass destruction warfare has been reduced with the ending of the Cold War.

d) All of the above.

Question 8

In what ways can the environment be linked to human insecurity?

a) Human insecurity is an interchangeable concept with environmental insecurity; environmental change invariably undermines human security because its impact is always 'human' and acts as a constraining or facilitating factor that determines the extent of human development. Environmental change and conditions will therefore be the primary determinant of a person's or community's capacity to adapt to their surroundings.

b) The ways in which environmental change can threaten the welfare of the international system is dependent on the extensity of poverty as the key variable determining a populations' reactive capabilities. Environmental change would have a negative impact if resources were available to adapt to environmental change to sustain their existing income levels.

c) Environmental change does not undermine human security in isolation in terms of the social determinants of insecurity, larger scale processes affect people sensitivity to environmental change and their capacity to adapt to them, whilst past processes shape present insecurities and ongoing processes shape future insecurities.

d) The concept of environmental human security is an essentially contested concept lacking empirical credibility of the ways in which specific environmental changes affect individuals or communities in particular times/ places and how this alters over a period of time. The lack of an agreed definition on what constitutes human security makes the possibility of developing a framework unlikely.

Question 9

To what extent and to what effect has the environment been securitized?

a) The securitization of environmental security concerns has raised the profile of environmental security issues among both foreign and domestic security policy makers and agencies. It is now recognized that environmental change can be considered as an issue of high security politics. These changes relate to a deepening of the issue of security and a fundamental change in policy and action in terms of the referent object.

b) Environmental security has led to a 'trading off' of military security for environmental security with the allocation of resources committed to solving environmental problems. A particular emphasis has been placed on environmental change as the cause of violent conflict and addressing environmental threats from other factors than domestic causes.

c) The environment has been 'securitized' in the sense that environmental security has been used to make them matters of 'high politics'. This has to some degree raised the profile of critical issues among policy-makers and agencies so that the environment can be considered an issue of security. But whilst the issue has been broadened there has been little change in policy and action in terms of the referent object of environmental security.

d) The national security perspective on environmental issues has undermined the utility of the concept of environmental security. The militarization of environmental problems has decreased the ability of policy-makers to 'capture' the critical nature of environmental problems and the environmental dimensions to social vulnerability. The reconciliation of environmental security with national security, and global levels of international change cannot be made without trading in the security interests of the state.

Question 10

What long-term trends can be foreseen in the concept of environmental security?

a) The concept of human security in the post-9/11 reversion to traditional security thinking which may result in research and policy being concerned with the concept of environmental security as a national security threat and opportunities for the military to be involved in securing access to resources to consolidate economic base, as it gains more currency for decision-makers.

b) Increasing evidence of the negative effects of environmental insecurity may increasingly govern national security interests and behavior. The relevance will increase until national unilateralist initiatives are taken to retain the social organization of the nation which may have the adverse affect of increasing the prospect of conflict.

c) National security practices are the most effective means to achieving environmental security reforms to consolidate the socio-economic organizational base of the country against threat. The state on a practical level remains the most capable body - having the monopolization over the instruments of violence, and centralization of resources - to enter into trans-national agreements for the management of environmental constraints.

d) The impact of environmental problems seem unlikely to diminish so that the relevance of environmental security as a policy will likely increase, particularly multilateral action on common security concerns to achieve forms of social organization that are ecologically sustainable. Thus, in some sense, current practices of national security are an impediment to achieving environmental security for all people.

Oxford University Press, Online Resource Centre, Chapter 11.

Chapter 11

Instructions

Question 1

Question 2

Question 3

Question 4

Question 5

Question 6

Question 7

Question 8

Question 9

Question 10