Environmental Ethics in the Military: Between Warfare and Ecosystem Protection

Introduction

The relationship between security and the natural environment is considered a combination of risks posed by catastrophic climatic events and human-induced damage on the environment that entail ex-post risks of emerging violence. This paradigm has emerged in the Mid-2000s to explain climate change as a destabilizing factor in already fragile countries by forcing migration and intensifying conflicts over natural resources (Boas & Rothe, 2016). In the following pages the three main perspectives of environmental security are discussed; second, some facts and figures are presented to illustrate key trends in the field; and finally, military ethical issues are analyzed. It is argued that these complexities remain as question marks for strategic planning, training and operations on the ground posing a new ethical challenge for the postmodern military.

The mainstream in the field argues that as a result of earth system science contributions some parameters of global security have changed so that human beings are more aware of the Anthropocene era and security has become a concern in terms of ecological considerations (Dalby, 2007, 156). In fact, the idea of an Anthropocene epoch itself enlarges the political scope into planetary politics by acknowledging the relationship between social and geophysical forces (Johnson & Morehouse, 2014, p. 448).

Nevertheless, the rise of a 21^st Century environmental ethics can be divided into a theoretical and practical level. From a conceptual viewpoint, Avner De Shalit (2017, p.559) considers that there are two ways to conceptualize environmental ethics: the environmental awareness implies solutions and actions derived from an educational sphere and the environmental consciousness is focused in modifying political institutions. In the application of these environmental ethics, Pablo Iannone (2016, p. 17) argues that practical ethics operate both through an institutional scope (formulation of policies, practices, rules of conduct and evaluation) and a care-taking level that focuses in every-day decisions in the application of institutions, policies and rules (Iannone, 2016, p. 17). The ecological awareness in the military analyzed in the following pages considers the question of awareness from a practical level.

To begin with, some security hazards to the ecosystem and human health are threats caused by pollution, the unsustainable consumption of natural resources, armed conflicts, climatic disasters and a poor management of natural resources, particularly when controversies between countries have not been resolved (Mrema 2015, p.19). In that regard, there are at least three environmental security perspectives: geopolitical, anthropocentric and biocentric (Cuddworth & Hobden, 2011).

The first vision maintains that conflicts caused by soil erosion, climate change and other human-produced disturbance of the ecosystem impose an increasing risk of environmental conflicts (Gleditsch, 1998, p. 387). This state-centered idea focuses on territorial doctrines and national security approaches to environmental security complexities (Cuddworth & Hobden, 2011). The geopolitical paradigm points out that scarcity or abundance of resources and the risks posed by alterations on the environment increase the prospects for conflicts towards the control of renewable and non-renewable natural resources (Institute for Environmental Security, 2015; Klare, 2012; Le Billon, 2008).

There are also rising concerns regarding wildlife and forest crimes. The United Nations´ classification of environmental crimes points out the trade, export, consumption, processing or possession of wild flora and fauna in contravention of national or international law (UNODC 2014).This form of illegal exploitation of the flora and fauna undermines biodiversity and has become one of the largest transnational criminal activities because it commonly involves other types of criminality such as money laundering or fraud (UNODC, 2014).