Environmental security: the policy agenda

Abstract

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes Commission on North‐South Issues (1980 Commission on North‐South Issues 1980 North‐South: A Programme for Survival Pan Books Ltd, London [Google Scholar]); Independent Commission on Disarmament and Security Issues (1982 Independent Commission on Disarmament and Security Issues 1982 Common Security Pan Books Ltd, London [Google Scholar]); World Commission on Environment and Development (1987 World Commission on Environment and Development 1987 Our Common Future Oxford University Press, New York [Google Scholar]); Commission on Global Governance (1995 Commission on Global Governance 1995 Our Global Neighborhood Oxford University Press, New York [Google Scholar]). The Environment and Conflicts Project (ENCOP) is jointly run by the Centre for Security Studies and Conflict Research at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich (ETHZ), and the Swiss Peace Foundation, Berne. Stuart Horsman, Environment of Security in Central Asia, London, Royal Institute of International Affairs, Briefing Paper 17, 2001. A summary of these critiques can be found in Dabelko et al. (1999 Dabelko GD Halle M Lonergan S Matthew R 1999 State‐of‐the‐Art Review of Environment, Security, and Development Cooperation Report prepared for the Working Party on Development Cooperation and Environment, OECD Development Assistance Committee, Paris [Google Scholar]). See, for example, de Soysa, 2000 de Soysa I 2000 The Resource Curse: Are Civil Wars Driven by Rapacity or Paucity? in Berdal M Malone DM (eds) Greed and Grievance: Economic Agendas in Civil Wars Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder, CO [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]. For an overview of resource wealth‐related conflicts, see Renner, 2002 Renner M 2002 The Anatomy of Resource Wars Worldwatch Paper 162. Worldwatch Institute, Washington, DC [Google Scholar]. This section is adapted from Michael Renner and Hilary French, ‘Links between Environment, Population, and Development,’ commissioned by the UnitedNations Foundation as an input into UN Secretary‐General Kofi Annan's High‐Level Panel on Global Security, 17 December 2003. This is far from the lofty goal, agreed in the 1970s, of providing 0.7% of donors' GDP in aid money. Today, rich donor countries on average make available only about 0.2% of their GDP as aid; the US is at the bottom of the league with a mere 0.1%. Of course, humanitarian aid is governed largely by short‐term emergencies and as such is an unavoidable need. For instance, food aid provided by the United Nations World Food Programme reached record levels in 2003, when WFP assisted 110 million hungry people worldwide. Even so, its US$4.3 billion budget still left significant operational shortfalls. See ‘In 2003, UN food agency helped more people than ever in its 40‐year history,’ UN News, New York, 30 December 2003. Governments may resist the involvement of international organizations. A proposal in the late 1990s to expand UNEP's mandate to include conflict prevention (through early‐warning efforts) was rejected by the great majority of states. Carius (2002). Additional informationNotes on contributorsMichael Renner Michael Renner is Senior Researcher and Project Director, Vital Signs, Worldwatch Institute. Michael Renner is Senior Researcher and Project Director, Vital Signs, Worldwatch Institute.