Page 506

National Security, National Interest, and Sustainability

Thomas E. Lovejoy
Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development, Latin America & Caribbean Region,
The World Bank, 1818 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20433 and Room SI 463, Smithsonian Institution, 1000 Jefferson Drive, SW, Washington, DC 20560

Global change is usually thought of—incorrectly—only in terms of physical change and primarily on a planetary scale (for example, climate change and ozone depletion). Often forgotten are local changes that lead to regional and global biodiversity loss—both direct changes (the “green” or conservation issues) and indirect changes (the “brown” or pollution issues) (Patrick 1961, 1962, 1964).

Biodiversity is thus affected by the aggregate of all environmental problems (brown and green) and, as a consequence, represents the global “bottom line”. The loss of biodiversity proceeds in increments that often seem inconsequential, but there is virtual unanimity among scientists that given present trends, the planet is likely to be ravaged biologically with the loss of one-fourth to one-half of all species within a century (Heywood 1995). Most recently, in August 1999, botanists who were assembled in St. Louis, Missouri, for the International Botanical Congress issued a projection of a similar scale.

Given the scale of the problem and the fact that biodiversity is affected by so many other economic and political decisions, to be effective the conservation and scientific communities need to engage the foreign-policy community. If that is successful, it could focus the efforts on root causes and on other foreign-policy issues that affect biodiversity. The foreign-policy community, in turn, should be willing to engage because biodiversity affects its more traditional political and economic concerns and because addressing biodiversity can advance foreign-policy interests.

National security is a term that was interpreted rather narrowly during the Cold War as related primarily to violent interstate conflict. Intrastate conflicts (wars

Page 507

of national debilitation) were considered under this militaristic conception of security but were still viewed through the lens of proxy wars in the East-West conflict. National security in this context was related more to immediate bellicosity and the proximate causes of warfare than to underlying causes of a range of conflict not limited to orchestrated violence. Immediately after World War II, national security concerns were interpreted more broadly; economic stability was a centerpiece of the security strategy undergirding the Marshall Plan. With the coming of the Cold War, however, a broader view of national security was shunted aside in favor of the military standoff.

The end of the Cold War brought with it a lively debate over “new” security threats. A number of observers have called for “redefining security” to take into account an array of nonmilitary issues that pose fundamental threats to the health and well-being of populations or their national security. Jessica Mathews (1989), like Lester Brown (1977) and Richard Ullman (1983) before her, drew attention to links between environment and security and called for redefinition of security in her seminal Foreign Affairs article, “Redefining Security”. They stressed the roles that environment and population variables could play, negatively or positively, in contributing to economic and political stability (see also Homer-Dixon 1994; 1999). Beyond the stability concern that still spoke to traditional security considerations, Mathews and others argued for a broadened conception of security that incorporated concern for individuals, society, and even ecosystems as a more meaningful response to post-Cold War threats (Myers 1993).

Some have warned against expanding the definition of national security to the point of meaninglessness (Deudney 1991; Gleditsch 1997; Levy 1995). If it means everything, it means nothing. Others have worried that linking environment and security merely amounts to a rhetorical ploy to grab budgetary resources and in fact presents a real threat that the environment might be militarized rather than security's being greened (Kakönën 1994; Wëver 1995). To avoid those pitfalls, sharp thinking is required to sort out the environmental issues that need to be considered with the highest priority and the ones that do not.

The relationship of biological diversity to the national interest and national security falls into four categories used in foreign-policy analysis: health and well-being of individuals; economic security; conflict, state capacity, and stability; and the role of security institutions. This analysis looks at the subject primarily from a generic viewpoint rather than solely from that of the United States. Another analysis (Westling 1999) appeared as this volume was in press.

Health and Well-Being of Individuals

Foreign-policy analysts are generally concerned about the protection of citizens at home and abroad from harmful effects of war, disease, and famine. Biodiversity loss can lead to disease, mortality, and food-supply problems, but, equally important, biodiversity can contribute to prevention of threats and enhance understanding of how to deal with them.

A well-elaborated contribution to health and well-being of individuals is that of the value of wild species to medicine, including pharmaceutical research (Grifo

Page 508

and Rosenthal 1997). This goes beyond the contribution to particular medicines (for example, the antibiotic cyclosporin or birth-control pills from a Mexican yam) to the contribution to research and development in the life sciences (particularly the health sciences). A most dramatic example is an enzyme from the bacterium Thermus aquaticus, originally discovered in a Yellowstone hot spring, which makes the polymerase chain reaction possible. This reaction, the development of which was honored by the Nobel Prize in chemistry in 1993,1 is a rapid magnifying reaction that produces copious copies of genetic material in the space of hours. Among other things, it is fundamental to the Human Genome Project, with all its incalculable promise for human health, and is central in diagnostic medicine and a wide variety of biological research.

Second is the contribution of wild genes to agriculture and animal husbandry, which produce enormous benefits for people. This contribution is potentially greater today because genetic engineering essentially allows a gene to be transferred between any two species rather than only species that can be coaxed to interbreed. The importance of this contribution is evident in light of the need to feed the soaring human population by intensifying agriculture while reducing associated negative environmental affects. However, like any technology, it must be used carefully.

A third contribution of wild species to agriculture is that at the organism level, including pollination and integrated pest management that enhance agricultural production and health and save lives. An example of the latter was the identification, through the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research, of a parasitic wasp from Paraguay that was the natural predator of the cassava mealy bug then on the verge of creating major famine in West Africa, where neither cassava, the mealy bug, nor the wasp was native (Herren and Neuenschwander 1991). Integrated pest management not only enhances agricultural yields (for example, it prevents billions of dollars of agricultural loss annually in the United States), but also reduces adverse environmental effects of pesticide use.

A fourth contribution of biological diversity to the health and well-being of individuals involves the physical threats stemming from the failure of ecosystem services (Myers 1996). A classic example is the flooding and loss of life in Bangladesh and India from deforestation further up the Ganges watershed in Nepal. The impact of Hurricane Mitch on Central America in 1998 was significantly aggravated by the loss of forest cover. A less well-known example, related to the ozone layer and the protection that it provides against UV radiation, is that a 1% increase in UV radiation causes a 10% increase in the incidence of cataracts; there is very little research on the implications of increased UV radiation for other forms of life and what they might mean for people.

Biological diversity contributes, sometimes directly and sometimes indirectly, to the growth of the life sciences. This goes way beyond medical research itself to involve important but serendipitous medical implications, such as how accidental

1 The 1993 Nobel Prize for chemistry was awarded to Kary B. Mullis for his invention of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method.

Page 509

contamination of a laboratory culture by Penicillium mold led to the discovery of antibiotics. The information that is contained in living organisms of value to the life sciences constitutes the library function of biological diversity and has implications as far afield as bioindustry and industrial ecology.

Economic Security

Governments are naturally concerned about matters that affect the economic condition of their nations and people.

One concern about important national economic resources is the possible loss of monopoly because of international theft. A classic example—although not of actual theft—is the collapse of the Amazon rubber boom after rubber tree seeds were exported by Henry Wickham, an Englishman residing in the lower Amazon; the exported seeds provided the entire basis of the Malaysian rubber industry which supplanted Amazon rubber.

A second category, which might be far less obvious, is the effects of alien species that can cause serious problems when introduced into places where they are not native. Alien species are the second greatest cause of extinction after habitat destruction, but by and large they are not regarded as a security issue or as of great economic import. For example, the loss of the American elm through Dutch elm disease is probably viewed more as an aesthetic consequence than as an economic one. But, the collapse of the lake trout fishery in the Great Lakes because of the introduction of the lamprey and the clogging of the pipes of electric plants by the zebra mussel have clear economic consequences. The comb jelly Mnemiopsis leidyi (transported in ballast water from the Atlantic coastal waters of the New World) has short-circuited the food chain in the Black Sea and is now equal in biomass to the 250-million-dollar-a-year anchovy fishery that it has replaced (Carlton 1996); this clearly is an economic-security issue for the Black Sea nations. Sometimes, the combination of two alien species can create a problem that each alone does not. The zebra mussel accumulates polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) through filter feeding in the Great Lakes and could even have been a good bioremediator to clean up that pollutant. The introduction of a species of fish (a goby) that feeds on zebra mussels now opens the possibility that PCBs will work their way once again up the food chain with both human health consequences and economic consequences, including the need to close down the fishery (Jude 1996).

Ecosystem services provided by biological diversity provide a third connection with economic security. The Panama Canal, a strategic economic waterway, requires a freshwater supply if it is both to function as a canal and to provide a biological barrier between the Pacific Ocean and Caribbean Sea biotas. The fresh-water supply, in turn, depends on the forests of the canal watershed. A Smithsonian scientist once calculated that total deforestation of that watershed would result in 3 million cubic meters of sediments entering the canal each year. Another example is the hydrological cycle of the Amazon basin, in which half the rainfall is generated internally largely because of the forest cover. The stability of the Amazon climate, and indeed that of central South America, depends on

Page 510

all the Amazon Pact nations' working together to maintain the integrity of that cycle.

A fourth connection between biological diversity and economic security involves physical damage to territory. Biodiversity loss can be both the consequence and the cause of such damage as in Hurricane Mitch in Central America in 1998. Nonetheless, if the more ambitious versions of the Hidrovia waterway project for the Parana Paraguay drainage went forward, the economic consequences could be similar to those engendered by modifications to the southern Florida ecosystem and the Mississippi drainage. The United States is now investing large sums to restore the South Florida ecosystem by reversing the effects of 50 years of independent decisions about water that have reduced sheet flow of water by 25%–50%. There was much greater Mississippi flood damage in 1993 than would otherwise have been the case, because of diking and other projects that altered the natural riverbed.

Another connection between biological diversity and economic security involves the relationships between genetic resources, science, and economic growth. For the United States and other advanced industrial nations, science and technology are essential to maintaining economic growth. Biological science and biotechnology, in particular, are sectors of research and development of major and growing importance. Access to genetic resources—the ability to use and study genetic material in or from other countries—is essential under appropriate rules and with due compensation, of course. Extinction, obviously, represents the ultimate loss of access, because living material no longer exists.

Conflict, State Capacity, and Stability

Top foreign-policy and security concerns include avoidance of unnecessary conflict, coupled with preparedness in case of need, and efforts to maintain stability both outside and inside the state.

A traditional aspect involves the protection of strategic goods, usually thought of in terms of physical resources, such as oil and uranium. There might be instances in which these include genetic resources. From a historical perspective, Southeast Asian rubber is an example of a strategic target for the Japanese in World War II.

A second category would be conflicts arising over resources. There have been spats over fishery issues (involving, for example, Canada, Spain, and the outer continental shelf of North America), but there seem to be no examples of major interstate conflict arising over biological resources. In this context, it is ironic that nations will fight over a square meter of territory and ignore the loss of territory in cubic meters through soil erosion.

Biological resources can relate to defense preparedness. Certainly, access to rubber and quinine were essential to the Allied war effort in World War II, and antibiotics contributed in an important way as well. It is hard to see how biological resources will play as big a role in high-technology wars, except for the dark side of biological warfare. The threat of the latter is far greater than many recognize, and protocols and agreements are generally poorly developed and weak. A

Page 511

more interesting contribution of biological diversity might be as a source of intelligence information. The provenance of a Japanese submarine was once identified by algae scraped from its hull and analyzed by Ruth Patrick (personal communication). Many species have quite limited distributions and can therefore serve as useful sources of geographic information. Microbial species that can accumulate radionuclides can be used to assess compliance and noncompliance with nuclear nonproliferation.

A fourth and enormously important connection with biological resources is conflict prevention and confidence-building. Environmental cooperation between two states often leads to broader cooperation on seemingly more difficult issues. The common agenda on the environment between Brazil and the United States is an outstanding example. The water problems of Cyprus might present a first important subject of cooperation between North Cyprus and South Cyprus; certainly, the problem cannot be addressed without both parties. Binational peace parks can play an important role in reducing border tensions; in 1998, a peace park between Ecuador and Peru was a major element in resolving their territorial dispute.

The fifth link of biological resources, namely political tension between countries, is probably likely to be a contributing, rather than a causal, factor. An example would be US and Canadian tensions over the management of Pacific salmon stocks. An example of a causal factor and biodiversity loss as an associated consequence2 was the El Salvador-Honduras soccer war, generally agreed to have been caused by problems with environmental refugees.

The Role of Security Institutions

Security institutions are generally not thought about from an environmental perspective, but biodiversity can have both positive and negative effects. The Department of Defense (DOD) now reviews any “significant military exercise” (a technical DOD term) for possible environmental effects. Although it is hard to see how this could weigh heavily during full war conditions (for example, the US military was not included in the greenhouse gas commitments negotiated under the climate convention at Kyoto, Japan, in 1997), there is substantial military activity during peacetime. DOD now works to conserve biological diversity on its extensive land holdings. Medea, a group of US scientists with security clearances, study data gathered by the US intelligence community3 to see whether they

2For more on the linkages between environmental refugees and conflict, see Homer-Dixon and Percival 1996. In response to the grossly overpopulated and severely degraded land in their native land, Salvadorans had been gradually migrating into their less densely populated neighbor, Honduras. As the land continued to be more degraded and population continued to increase, more Salvadorans were crossing the Honduran border; this led to the Honduran government's expulsion of the migrants. War then broke out between the two countries in 1969.

3 An environmental task force was established in 1992 by the Central Intelligence Agency to assess how crucial environmental issues could be solved through the use of the US national security apparatus. The task force brought together the group of 60 prominent US environmental and global-change scientists, know as MEDEA.

Page 512

include useful environmental information. An example would be data on possible thinning of the Arctic ice cap as an early indicator of global warming.

Conclusions

Viewing through a traditional political-science lens, one is forced to conclude that environment (under the collective umbrella of biodiversity effects) is more often a contributing factor, with some other aspects of national interest and security, than a causal factor. The weak part of that conclusion is that although biodiversity loss is easy to ignore incrementally, for national interest and security the aggregate can be disastrous. For example, Haiti's major biodiversity loss is caused by almost complete deforestation, and loss and deforestation are clearly not in Haiti's national interest. Given present trends, the loss of biodiversity could also be disastrous on a global scale. The press of everyday problems makes it too easy, in Jessica Mathews's terms, for the urgent to override the important.

Scale and rate of change affect how we should view matters. As this forum met, there were gigantic smoke clouds from extensive fires in the Amazon, as well as the better-known vast fires in Indonesia. Together they mean that more of the world burned in 1997 than ever before in recorded history. That is hard to dismiss as not of high national interest and security concern. As Madeleine Albright has observed, threats to national security are no longer confined to armed threats.4 They also come through the air, water, changing climate, and loss of biological diversity. The positive contributions of biodiversity and ecosystems—present and potential—and the negative effects of loss are so great that they merit much more serious attention. The “important”—the environment and biological diversity—has indeed become urgent.

Acknowledgments.

This paper required my learning about a field basically new to me, namely political science/foreign affairs, including its vocabulary. I am grateful to the Environmental Change and Security Project of the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars for my tutorial, first and foremost to its founding director, P.J. Simmons. His successor, Geoff Dabelko, and Jessica Powers and Aaron Frank were all very helpful. J.P. Myers and Sarah Vogel helped with the information on zebra mussels, gobies, and PCBs. Kathleen Conforti was helpful in countless ways.

References

Brown L. 1977. Redefining security. Worldwatch Pap No 14. Washington DC: Worldwatch Inst.

Carlton JT. 1996. Marine bioinvasions: the alteration of marine ecosystems by nonindigenous species. Oceanography 9:36–43.

4 Remarks at Saint Michael's College, excerpted in the 1998 Environmental Change and Security Project Report.

Page 513

Deudney D. 1991. Environment and security: muddled thinking. Bull Atom Sci April:23–8.

Gleditsch NP (ed). 1997. Conflict and the environment. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Grifo F, Joshua R (eds). 1997. Biodiversity and human health. Washington DC: Island Pr.

Herren HR, Neuenschwander P. 1991. Biological control of cassava pests in Africa. Ann Rev Entonol 36:257–83.

Homer-Dixon T. 1999. Environment, scarcity, and violence. 2nd ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ Pr.

Homer-Dixon TF, Percival V. 1996. Environmental scarcity and violent conflict: briefing book.

Toronto: Univ Toronto, The Project on Environment, Population, and Scarcity.

Homer-Dixon T. 1994. Environmental scarcities and violent conflict: evidence from cases. Int Security 19:5–40.

Jude DJ. 1996. Gobies: cyberfish of the 90's.

Kakönën J (ed). 1994. Green security or militarized environment. Brookfield: Darmouth.

Levy MA. 1995. Is the environment a national security issue? Int Security 20:35–62.

Mathews JT. 1989. Redefining security. For Affairs 68:162–77.

Myers N. 1996. Environmental services of biodiversity. Washington DC: National Acad Pr and Covelo CA: Island Pr.

Myers N. 1993. Ultimate security: the environmental basis of political stability. New York: WW Norton.

Patrick R. 1964. A discussion of natural and abnormal diatom communities. In: Jackson DF (ed). Algae and man. New York: Plenum Pr.

Patrick R. 1961. A study of the numbers and kinds of species found in rivers in eastern United States. Proc Acad Nat Sci Phila: 113:215–58.

Patrick R. 1962. Effects of river physical and chemical characteristics on aquatic life. J Amer Water Works Asso 54:544–50.

Ullman RH. 1983. Redefining security. Int Security 8:129–53.

UNEP [United Nations Environment Programme]. 1995. Global biodiversity assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ Pr. 1140 p.

Westling AH. 1999. Biodiversity loss and its implications for security and armed conflict. In: Cracraft J, Grifo FT (eds). The living planet in crisis: biodiversity, science, and policy. New York: Columbia Univ Pr. p 209–16.

Wëver O. 1995. Securitization and desecuritization. In: Lipschutz RD (ed). On security. New York: Columbia Univ Pr. p 46–86.