remodeling the enviromental security concept

8/8/2019 Remodeling the Enviromental Security Concept

1/30

REMODELING THE ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY CONCEPT:

UNMASKING THE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL ELIXIR-

Elijah C. Briggs LL.B (1st Class) BL, LLM (UK)

1.0. INTRODUCTION

The juxtaposition of security and environment raises more profound issues for

international relations than many scholars and policy commentators have addressed in

any detail.1 A flurry of analyses lucidly unveil the relationships between environmental

change and violence and come to the conclusion that international conflict is unlikely as a

result of environmental change

They have also used environmental agreements and negotiating processes as an analytical

focus for research into the dynamics of international regimes. But in most of these

analyses environment is a backdrop, independent variable to conventional social science

concerns. The small critical literature suggests that environmental degradation is very

substantially driven by the processes implicit in the normal operations of national and

international politics; hence the analysis takes for granted precisely what it ought to

investigate.

2

This difficulty is especially clear in the discussion of environmental security, where it

surfaces frequently in discussions of the necessity of rethinking security, whether in

terms of common, comprehensive or human security.

However, in the wake of this stunning reality a succinct appraisal of the concept of

Environmental Security; its functionality as bordering on the seemingly intractable

problems and palpable fears surrounding the 21ST century and a circumspect peer at

international legal frameworks aimed at effectively handling these growing concerns

form the fulcrum of this paper. Albeit a critical overview of the prevailing situation in the

Niger Delta region in Nigeria (as a typical example) vis--vis Environmental Security and

1 Simon Dalby. Environmental Security: Ecology or International relations? p. 12 Ibid

1


2/30

other attendant issues have also been brought to the front burner in our imminent

discourse.

2.0. ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY

Gallons of jurisprudential ink have been spilled in a determined attempt at defining

international security and this has been debated extensively by political scientists and

others, and has varied over time. AfterWorld War II, definitions typically focused on the

subject ofrealpolitikthat developed during the Cold Warbetween the United States and

the Soviet Union3.

As tensions between the superpowers eased after the collapse of the Soviet Union,

academic discussions of definitions of security significantly expanded to encompass a far

broader range of threats to peace, including, particularly, environmental threats

associated with the political implications of resource use or pollution. By the mid-1980s,

this field of study was becoming known as environmental security. Despite a wide

range of semantic and academic debates over terms, it is now widely acknowledged that

environmental factors play both direct and indirect roles in both political disputes and

violent conflicts.

During the 1990s, security dynamics established during the decades long Cold War began

to loose their currency. At the same time, increasing evidence about the unprecedented

magnitude of human-generated pollution, ecosystem simplification, and resource

depletion was compelling. Many important relationships between nature and security had

long been acknowledged by security specialists: the differences in the modalities of

power of land- and sea-based states; the advantages and disadvantages conferred on

offense and defense by topography and climate; the challenge of getting fuel and food to

troops on foreign soil; and the risks to soldiers posed by unfamiliar viruses and bacteria.

3 Steve McCormick; Essay on environmental security ofThe Nature Conservancy

2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_securityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_IIhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitikhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_Warhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Unionhttp://www.nature.org/tncscience/bigideas/people/art19851.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nature_Conservancyhttp://www.nature.org/tncscience/bigideas/people/art19851.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nature_Conservancyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_securityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_IIhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitikhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_Warhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union


3/30

Perhaps addressing challenges posed by new forms of environmental stress and scarcity

was the logical next phase of a well-established defense tradition4.

Thinking about nature and security, however, was by no means confined to the defense

establishment. In the 1980s and 1990s a variety of perspectives sought to shape public

perceptions, attract resources, and guide policy. At the dawn of the twenty-first century, it

is fair to claim that concerns about the magnitude and multiple implications of human-

generated environmental change have had significant influence on the theory and practice

of national security5. Our research continues to explore linkages between environmental

degradation and security issues and includes work which proceeds on two tracks: Human

Security and the Security Implications of Landmines.

In the academic sphere environmental security is defined as the relationship between

security concerns such as armed conflict and the natural environment. A small but rapidly

developing field, it has become particularly relevant for those studying resource scarcity

and conflict in the developing world6.

Consequently, the relation between the environment and the security of humans and

nature has been the object of much research and the subject of many publications in

recent decades, but it is only recently becoming an important focus of international

environmental policy.

A recent comprehensive overview of the environmental security field observes that the

environment is the most transnational of transnational issues, and its security is an

important dimension of peace, national security, and human rights that is just now being

understood7. It is also note worthy that over the next 100 years; one third of current

4 Matthew, Richard. "Resource Scarcity: Responding to the Security Challenge." International Peace

Institute, April 2008.

5 Ibid6 Mathews, J.T. 1989. Redefining Security, Foreign Affairs 68, No. 2 (Spring 1989): pp. 162-177.

7www.envirosecurity.org

3
http://www.ipacademy.org/publications/policy-papershttp://www.ipacademy.org/publications/policy-papers


4/30

global land cover will be transformed, with the world facing increasingly hard choices

among consumption, ecosystem services, restoration, and conservation and management8.

It is germane to point out at this critical juncture that Environmental security is central to

national security, comprising the dynamics and interconnections among the natural

resource base, the social fabric of the state, and the economic engine for local and

regional stability; and that while the precise roles of the environment in peace, conflict,

destabilization and human insecurity may differ from situation to situation and as such

are still being debated in relation to other security and conflict variables, there are

growing indications that it is increasingly an underlying cause of instability, conflict and

unrest.

2.1. IMPORTANCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY

To the extent humankind neglects to maintain the globe's life-supporting eco-systems

generating water, food, medicine, and clean air, current and future generations will be

confronted with increasingly severe instances of environmentally induced changes.

Such events will test our traditional concepts, boundaries, and understandings of national

security and alliance politics and, if taken for granted, may lead to conflict, including

violent conflict, from the global to the regional, national, local or human level.

Environmental security, broadly defined, affects humankind and its institutions and

organizations anywhere and at anytime.

Environmental scarcity is determined by environmental change, population size and

growth, and unequal distribution (or access to) resources. Of these factors, unequal access

to resources is not bound by physical limits alone. It is also a reflection of societies'

preferences, beliefs and norms. Leading examples of emerging environmental change are:

depletion and pollution of fresh water supplies, depletion of fisheries, degradation and

8 Ibid

4


5/30

disappearance of biodiversity, degradation and loss of agriculture lands, food and health

safety, stratospheric ozone depletion, and global warming.

It is hackneyed to note that of these major environmental changes facing humankind, the

first five are now, or will likely be, growing threats to environmental security in the near

term; the latter two will increasingly affect human security in the coming 50 years. The

interaction among and between the determinants of environmental scarcity sets the stage

for addressing the environmental security challenges humankind will be confronted with.

Our ability (or lack thereof) to make innovative institutional arrangements and/or

technological advances for managing the environmental security challenges we face, will

increase or decrease global environmental security9.

3.0. DIRE CONCERNS FACING THE 21ST CENTURY VIS-A-VIS THE ROLE OF

INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW:

Recent years have evinced an astronomical increment in the level of dangers facing the

international environment and an extensive range of environmental problems is now the

subject of serious international concern. These include Atmospheric pollution, marine

pollution, Global warming and ozone layer depletion, the dangers of nuclear and other

extra-hazardous substances and threatened wildlife species10. Such problems have an

international dimension in two obvious respects.

First, pollution generated from within a particular state often has a deleterious effect on

other countries. A prime example is acid rain, whereby chemicals emitted from factories

rise to the atmosphere and react with water and sunlight to form acids. These are wafted

by the guts of wind often thousands of miles away from their originating milieu.

Secondly, it is now apparent that environmental problems cannot be solved by states

acting individually. Hence cooperation between the polluting and the polluted

9 Emphasis mine10 M. Cawardine, The WWF Environment Handbook, London, 1990. p. 24

5


6/30

becomes expedient. A broad range of international participants are concerned with

participants in the field. States, of course as the dominant subjects of the international

legal order are deeply involved, as are in increasing number of international organizations

whether at the global, regional or bilateral level.

It is trite to note that the United Nations General Assembly has adopted a number of

resolutions concerning the environment11 and the UN Environmental Programme was

established after the Stockholm conference of 1972. This has proved a particular

important role in the evolution of conventions in the fields of environmental law.

UNEP has been responsible for the development of a number of initiatives including the

1985 Vienna convention for the Protection of the Ozone layer and the 1987 Montreal

protocol and the 1992 convention on Biodiversity12. Furthermore, an Inter-Agency

Committee on sustainable Development was set up in 1992 to improve cooperation

between the UN bodies concerned with this imminent topicality.

The holistic approach of this ingenuity is more evinced as the facility focuses upon

contemporary issues such as climate change, the destruction of biological diversity,

pollution of international waters and ozone depletion. Issues of land degradation also fall

within this framework. A cursory appraisal of certain key issues will suffice even as we

establish a nexus between 21st century concerns and coeval contemporary legislations to

checkmate their attendant harsh effects adequately.

3.1. ATMOSPHERIC POLLUTION

11 e.g, Resolutions 2398 (XXII); 2997 (XXVII)12 www.UNEP.org

6


7/30

Perhaps the earliest form of pollution relates to air pollution. The burning of fossil fuels

releases into the atmosphere sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides which change into acids

and are carried by natural elements and fall either as rain, snow or solid particles. Such

acids have the effect of killing living creatures in lakes and streams and of damaging soils

and forests13.

The question as to how one defines pollution has been addressed in a cornucopia of

instruments. In a Recommendation adopted in 1974 by the organization foe economic

cooperation and development,14 pollution is broadly defined as follows

The introduction by man, directly or indirectly,

of substances or energy into the environment resulting in

deleterious effects of such a nature as to endanger human

health, harm living resources and ecosystems and impair or interfere

with amenities and other legitimate uses of the environment

This definition was substantially reproduced in the Geneva Convention on Long Range

Trans Boundary Air pollution, 1979 and in the Montreal Rules of International Law

applicable to Transfrontier pollution adopted in 1982. so much can be gleaned from the

aforementioned robust provision. First, actual damage must have been caused.15Secondly

the harm caused must be of a certain level of intensity and thirdly, the question of

interference with legitimate uses of the environment requires some probity.16

By the extant provisions of the Geneva Convention, States shall endeavour to limit, and

as far as possible, gradually reduce and prevent air pollution including long range trans

boundary air pollution.17 It further provides that States develop policies and strategies to

combat vehemently the menace of air pollution.

13 See Keesings Record of world events. (1989). pp. 36782.14 OECD Doc.C(74)22415 Thus pollution likely to occur is not provided for16 Malcolm Shaw. International law. 5th Edition. 2003. P 78117 Art 3

7


8/30

In 1985, the Helsinki Protocol was signed, dealing with the reduction of sulphur

emissions or their trans boundary fluxes by at least 30% as soon as possible by 1993,

using 1980 levels a the basis for the calculation of reductions. The Protocol provides for

an annual report to the Executive Body of the convention.

In 1986 a Protocol to the Paris Convention for the prevention of Marine Pollution from

Land Based Sources extended the agreement to atmospheric emissions to pollutants.

Article 212 of the United Nations Convention on Laws of the Sea, 1982 requires states to

adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce and control atmospheric pollution of the

marine environment.18

In 1994, the Oslo Protocol on Further Reduction of Sulphur Emissions was adopted,

specifying sulphur emission ceilings for parties for the years 2000, 2005 and 2010 and

accompanied by a reporting to the Executive Body periodically. 1998 saw the conclusion

of two additional Protocols. One on persistent organic pollutants and the other on heavy

metals. A protocol in 1999 was to effectively address the abatement of acidification,

eutrophication, and ground-level ozone.

However in 2001, the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants was

signed, providing extensively for the production, trade in, disposal and use of twelve

named organic pollutants. Hands are constantly on deck to add more pollutants to the list

and an interim financial mechanism with the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) will

be principal entity to aid developing countries.19

3.2. OZONE DEPLETION AND GLOBAL WARMING

The problem of global warming and the expected increase in the temperature of the earth

in the decades to come has focused attention on the issues particularly of the consumption

18 Cf the Canada-United states Air Quality Agreement19 See www.pops.int

8


9/30

of fossil fuels and deforestation. This has left the world agape, startled onlookers,

flummoxed friends and foes alike and continues to hover around the corridors of

academicians and policy makers, preachers and pagans, politicians and the populace no

doubt an intriguing development.

Unarguably, the depletion of the atmospheric ozone layer, which has the effect of letting

excessive ultra violet radiation through to the surface of the earth, is a source of ominous

concern. A latent problem of attaining a legal definition of the ozone layer arose in time

past. Article 1(1) Vienna convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, 1985

attempts a succinct definition. Accordingly it is the layer of atmospheric ozone above

the planetary boundary layer. This area appears in the light of the global challenge

posed by zone depletion and climate change, to constitute a distinct unit with an identity

of its own regardless of national sovereignty or shared resources claim.20

Giant legal strides aimed at truncating the sordid trend were initiated in 1985 when the

Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer was birthed and adopted ipso

facto. It served as a framework agreement, occasioning an institutional structure for the

elaboration of protocols specifying standards pertaining to chlorofluorocarcons (CFCs),

the agents which cause ozone layer depletion. This indubitably afforded a formidable

foundation and crucible upon which subsequent legislations stemmed.

However in 1987 the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone layer was

adopted, canvassing for a phased reduction of CFCs and a freeze on the use of halons. 21

The control measures of the protocol are based on regulation of controlled substances22

by the freezing of their consumption. An implementation committee was established also

under the Protocol together with a non-compliance procedure.

Subsequent Adjustments and Amendments were effected on the Protocol in June 1990. 23

the main purport being specific reference to the requirement to take into account the

20 Malcolm Shaw. International Law, Op. Cit. p. 78421 See 26 ILM, 198722 i.e. substances capable of destroying the ozone layer23 See 30 ILM, 1991. p. 537

9


10/30

developmental needs of developing countries and the need for the transfer of alternative

technologies, and a Multilateral fund adopted on a permanent basis. Frenetic action as

regards the phenomenon of global warming has been relatively slow in pace. General

Assembly Resolutions 43/53 (1988) and 44/207 (1989) recognized the momentous

urgency and surmised that concerted efforts be put in place to deal squarely with the

issue.

A clarion call was made by the General Assembly to convene a conference on world

climate change and this was brought to fruition on 25th May 1989. interestingly, the

Hague Declaration on the Environment 1989, signed by twenty-four states called for the

establishment of new institutional authority under the aegis of the UN to combat further

global warming and for the negotiation of necessary legal instruments. Alas the UN

framework Convention on Climate Change was born in 1992.24

The underlying prime objective of the Convention was to achieve stabilization of

Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous

anthropogenic interference with the climate system and that would be achieved within a

time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure

food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a

stable manner.25

The Convention entered into force in 1994 and by the following year the first session of

the Conference was held in Berlin, with developed Nations agreeing to reduce emissions

by 2000 to 1990 levels were not adequate and preparations were commenced to draft a

further legal instrument by 1997.

1997 heralded the Kyoto Protocol, having at its front burner, committing developed

country parties to individual, legally binding targets to limit or reduce their greenhouse

gas emissions, adding up to a total cut of at least 5% from 1990 levels in the

commitment period of 2008-2012. whereas developing countries are saddled with the

24 See 34 ILM, 1992. p. 84925 Art 2

10


11/30

task of obliging existing commitments. The Protocol allows States to aggregate their

emissions e.g. EU members may work in tandem. Reports are to be made to the

secretariat, subject to circumspect and technical review.26

3.3. INTERNATIONAL WATERCOURSES

International watercourses are systems of surface waters and ground waters which are

situated in more than one state.27 Such watercourses form a unitary whole and normally

flow into a common terminus. While there has historically been some disagreement as to

the extent of the watercourse system, particularly whether it includes the complete river

basin with all associated tributaries and ground water systems, a broader definition is the

approach adopted in recent years.

In 1992, the Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and

International Lakes was adopted in Helsinki wherein all parties must take all appropriate

measures to prevent, control and reduce any significant adverse effect on the environment

resulting from a change in the conditions of transboundary waters caused by a human

activity. Such effects on the environment include effects on human health and safety,

flora, fauna, soil, air, water, climate, landscape, and also effects on the cultural heritage.28

The Convention on Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses,

1997 provides that watercourse states shall in their respective territories utilize an

international watercourse in an equitable and reasonable manner. Most assuredly,

optimal utilization must be consistent with adequate protection of the watercourse.29

Article 7 provides inter alia that watercourse states shall take all appropriate measures to

prevent the causing of significant harm to other watercourse states. Where such occurs,

consultations should be embarked upon to either eliminate or ameliorate such harm via

26 See www.ipcc.ch/27 See Report of the international Law Commission on its 46th session, 1994, p. 197.28 Art 1(2) and 2(1)29 Art 6

11


12/30

compensation and other veritable and viable means. Article 20 lucidly provides for utter

protection and preservation of watercourses by affected States,30

It is thus crystal clear that the international community is coming to terms with the need

to protect the environment of international watercourses. How evolving international

rules relate to the more traditional principles of international law was one of the issues

before the international court in the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros31projectcase.

3.4. ULTRA-HAZARDOUS ACTIVITIES

It is arguable within some precincts of intellectual discourse that ultra-hazardous

activities form a distinct portion in the field of international environmental vis--vis the

Environmental security concept. It is one wherein the principle of Strict Liability is

evoked some manner of caution must be exercised when determining what areas of

activity could be characterized as ultra-hazardous.32 It is apposite to attempt a brisk

glance at a couple of sub-topics under this heading.

3.4.1. NUCLEAR ACTIVITIES

It is no news that the use of nuclear activities poses a severe threat to the attainment of

effective Environmental Security. But at the same time its workability attracts alongside

some warm benefits. It will be remembered that the accident at the Chernobyl Nuclear

reactor in 198633 drove home to international opinion how disastrous and annihilating a

nuclear mishap may result into. Worrisome concerns had hitherto focused on nuclear

weapons. This necessitated the signing of the Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapons Testing

in the Atmosphere, Outer Space and Under Water.

30 See also Art 23 as relating to necessary measures for protection31 ICJ Reports, 1997. p.7.32 Malcolm Shaw, International Law, Op. Cit. p. 79633 See Sands; Chernobyl: Law and Communication. pp. 1-2.

12


13/30


14/30

It is apt to note that the Organization of African Unity 39 adopted a resolution proclaiming

the dumping of nuke and industrial wastes in Africa to be a crime against Africa and its

people. To deepen$ their unwavering commitment, the OAU in 1991 adopted the

Bamako Convention on the Ban of the Import into Africa and the Control of

Transboundary Movement and Management of Hazardous wastes in Africa.40

3.4.3 MARINE POLLUTION

Marine pollution arises chiefly from variegated sources, including the operation of

shipping, dumping at sea, activities on the seabed and the cacophonous effects of

pollution on the and entering the seas.41 Multitudinous treaties- bilateral, regional and

multilateral, dealing with such issues and some of the more significant of them in the

field of pollution from ships will be expatiated albeit with conscious brevity.

The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954

prohibits the discharge of oil within 50 miles of land and has been essentially superseded

by the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 197342 whose

prime objective is concerned with the forms of non-accidental pollution from ships apart

from dumping.

Pursuant to Article 211(2), UN Convention on Law of the Sea, 1982; States are to

legislate for the prevention, reduction and control of pollution of the marine environment

from vessels flying their flag or of their registry. Such rules are to have the same effect at

least as that of generally accepted international rules and standards established through

the competent international organization.43

The Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil

Pollution Damage was adopted in 1971 and enables compensation to be paid in certain

39 Now African Union (AU)40 See 30 ILM, 1991, p. 773.41 Art 194 and 207 Convention on Law of the Sea, 198242 Also known as MARPOL Convention43 The International Maritime Organization. See alsowww.imo.org for robust details

14
http://www.imo.org/http://www.imo.org/http://www.imo.org/


15/30


16/30

Channels case48 that it is the obligation of every state not to allow knowingly its territory

to be used for acts contrary to the rights of other states.

Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration of 1972 unreservedly provides that in addition

to the sovereign right to exploit their own resources in consonance with their own

environmental policies, states have the responsibility to ensure that activities within their

jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other states or of areas

beyond the limit of national jurisdiction. Although a modest formulation replicated in

principle 2 Rio Declaration of 1992, it has been seen as a radical turning point in the

development of international law and no doubt a phenomenal fillip towards the

attainment of Environmental Security.

Interestingly a major hiccup facing the state sovereignty approach stems from the fact

that the need to demonstrate that a particular damage has been caused to one state by the

actions of another state means that this model can only with difficulty be applied to an

infinitesimal proportion of environmental problems.49 Defining strico sensu the particular

source of the problem poses an onerous challenge as well and while this bilateral focus

cannot really come to terms with the fact that the protection of the environment of the

earth is truly a global problem requiring a proportionate global attention and pan-state

response.

5.0. FAR REACHING CONSEQUENCES OF ENVIRONMENTAL

DEGRADATION: THE NIGER DELTA IMBROGLIO

The State shall protect and improve the environment and safeguard the water, air and

land, forest and wildlife of Nigeria50

5.1. ORIGIN AND NATURE

48 35 AJIL, 1941, p. 18249 Malcolm Shaw, International Law, Op. Cit. p. 77150 Section 20, Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999

16


17/30

The delta covers 20,000 km within wetlands of 70,000 km formed primarily by

sediment deposition. Home to 20 million people and 40 different ethnic groups, this

floodplain makes up 7.5% of Nigeria's total land mass. It is the largest wetland and

maintains the third-largest drainage area in Africa. The Delta's environment can be

broken down into fourecological zones: coastal barrier islands, mangrove swamp forests,

freshwater swamps, and lowland rainforests. This incredibly well-endowed ecosystem,

which contains one of the highest concentrations ofbiodiversity on the planet, in addition

to supporting the abundant flora and fauna, arable terrain that can sustain a wide variety

of crops, lumber or agricultural trees, and more species of freshwater fish than any

ecosystem in West Africa. The region could experience a loss of 40% of its inhabitable

terrain in the next thirty years as a result of extensive dam construction in the region. The

carelessness of the oil industry has also precipitated this situation, which can perhaps be

best encapsulated by a 1983 report issued by the NNPC in 1983, long before popular

unrest surfaced:

We witnessed the slow poisoning of the waters of this country and the destruction of

vegetation and agricultural land by oil spills which occur during petroleum operations.

But since the inception of the oil industry in Nigeria, more than twenty-five years ago,

there has been no concerned and effective effort on the part of the government, let alone

the oil operators, to control environmental problems associated with the industry.51

5.2. THE STEEP DOWNTURN

The Niger Delta is an unstable area of Nigeria, and inter-ethnic clashes are common -

often access to oil revenue is the trigger for the violence. Pipelines are regularly

vandalized by impoverished residents, who risk their lives to siphon off fuel. Vandalism

is estimated to result in thousands of barrels of crude oil wastage every day - a loss to the

Nigerian economy of millions of dollars each year. Nigeria is the world's sixth largest oil-

51Quoted in Greenpeace International's Shell Shocked,11](Greenpeace)

17
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedimenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetlandhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecologicalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrier_islandhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mangrovehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swampshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainforestshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecosystemhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiversityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faunahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumberhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fishhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Africahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NNPChttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedimenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetlandhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecologicalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrier_islandhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mangrovehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swampshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainforestshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecosystemhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiversityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faunahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumberhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fishhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Africahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NNPC


18/30

producing nation. However, mismanagement and successive military governments have

left the country poverty-stricken.

Although many observers of the South South think primarily of youths invading oil

company properties when they think of conflict there, in fact the roots of South South

conflicts lie deeper in history and in the contemporary social circumstances of the area.

Contemporary history of the Delta can be summarized as economic decline and broken

promises. Historically, Delta communities prospered as middlemen controlling trade

with the interior, particularly palm oil products and slaves. But with the development of

the colonial state and independence, the region experienced a steady decline and

stagnation, for no new sources of wealth developed there to replace these activities. More

recently, the failure of the early independent Nigerian government to follow through on apromise to treat the Delta as a special development area, the steady reduction in the share

of oil royalties that states in the Delta have received, and, finally, the habitual disregard

of state needs by non-indigenous military state governors, continued and worsened Delta

problems. The FGRNs neglect of the Deltas development (roads, schools, electricity,

and health services all ended well inland before reaching coastal communities), Nigerias

overall economic decline since the mid-1980s, and the tendency of educated Delta youths

to leave the area, have confirmed its status as an economic backwater. The people who

remained behind simply lacked prospects elsewhere.

The complexity of issues and number of stakeholders involved exacerbate South South

problems. The Delta, in part because of its riverine/swamp topography, has historically

been politically extremely fragmented, and subject to frequent and at times violent

disputes over land and fishing rights, as well as over traditional leaders political

jurisdictions. These all lead to cycles of revenge violence. As more powerful weapons

became available in the Delta in the mid- and late-1990s, disputes became more violent.

Youth gangs became more powerful who were willing and able to protect their villages

and elders. As democratic competition returned in 19981999, some of these same youths

took up a new line of activity, paid disruption of campaign events, and/or provided

candidates protection from such unwanted attentions. Finally, traditional leaders have lost

18


19/30

much credibility and respect as they have been corrupted by payments from the military

government and the oil companies.

There is an inevitable and serious conflict of interest between Delta communities that

bear the environmental damage of oil extraction and the rest of the nation for which oil

money is essentially a free good. Delta populations, clearly a minority, regularly lose

these struggles. Had they some authority over environmental issues, many current

problems might be more manageable. Lacking this, and given the federal governments

control over all subsurface resources as well as ownership of all land, all Delta issues

inevitably become national issues. The national government has failed to resolve these. In

its campaign to buy off Delta discontent on the cheap, earlier administrations

frequently corrupted Delta community leaders. There is a deep distrust in the Deltaconcerning the federal government and a feeling among local populations that most other

Nigerians care little for their problems, so long as the oil flows. Delta populations

constantly campaign for a larger share of the federal cake, most of which originates in

their homelands (discussed further in the Economics section below).

As a result of these factors, and because oil companies did and do make tempting targets,

many aggrieved youths in the Delta resort to direct action to extract compensation for

their perceived losses. They invade oil company properties, take employees hostage, and

shut down facilities. Oil companies typically negotiate release of captured personnel and

properties with relative ease by paying the youths modest ransoms. This oil company

strategy creates a moral hazard: the willingness of companies to pay ransoms

stimulates imitators of this lucrative business, leading to sustained disruptions, at times

to competition among youths, and to a general sense of anarchy in the Delta.

Another conflict closely linked to federal control over Delta oil and the economy in

general is the intense competition for political office. For politicians, and for their

communities, control of federal office opens the high road to resources that can be

diverted from public to private or community control. Competition is naturally intense for

federal political offices and has historically turned violent in the second election in each

of Nigerias two previous republics. In summary, federal control over oil and much of the

19


20/30

rest of the economy tends to federalize many economic problems, particularly in the

Delta, and stimulates intense efforts to gain and hold office throughout Nigeria.

In this culture of cynicism about government, economic stagnation and hopelessness,

historical political fragmentation, and low-grade violent conflict, pre-existing political

fragmentation became institutional disintegration. Small groups of youths with weapons

went unchallenged and found oil companies easy targets for hold-up and ransom. As the

oil companies paid off the first gangs, others were inspired and soon followed suit.

Throughout the 1990s, incidents of youth gangs extorting payments from oil companies

and engaging in violence escalated, until they leveled off and began dropping in 1999.

Something is needed to encourage multiple and historically competing/conflicting

communities to start working together, to bring more moderate and mature leaders back

into the centers of decision making, to co-opt or marginalize violent youths, and to find

constructive and promising avenues of activity for a currently "lost generation." If the

promised 13% royalties on oil production are actually paid to the states and spent in the

Delta, and if the new Nigeria Delta Development Corporation (NDDC) comes on line,

they might offer enough funds to leverage meaningful local cooperation in the

development and implementation of "area development plans."

Military authorities in Bayelsa State in the Niger delta region declared a state of

emergency in late December 1998 in response to violence by members of the Ijaw ethnic

group who sought greater local autonomy. In November 1999, the army destroyed the

town of Odi, Bayelsa State and killed scores of civilians in retaliation for the murder of

12 policemen by a local gang.

Fighting continues between two ethnic groups -- Itsekiris and Ijaw residents of the Niger

Delta. Tensions between the Itsekiris and the Ijaw communities remained high in 2003,

with intermittent reports of violence. Tribal clashes in March 2003 forced the withdrawal

of major oil companies from the area. Ethnic clashes in the region led to dozens of

deaths, and forced multi-national oil giants to curtail operations in the area. Oil

companies were forced to shut down 40 percent of the countrys output as the Ijaws and

20


21/30

Itsekiris traded gunfire. Ethnic fighting resurfaced in Nigeria's oil-rich Niger Delta in

mid-August 2003. This was the most serious fighting in the area since March. But in

October 2003 James Ibori, the Governor of Delta State, brought the warring Ijaw and

Itsekiri communities together to agree a fragile peace. Fighting between the two groups

killed more than 200 people during 2003 and forced the government to send in troop

reinforcements to restore order.

The level of violence that Delta youth can muster seemed unlikely to seriously impede oil

production. This implied that Delta conflicts will not exert a marked negative effect on

the national economy. Moreover, Delta problems do not threaten consolidation of

democratic civilian governance in Nigeria nor do they trigger ethnic riots elsewhere in

the country.

On 01 Jun 2004 leaders of rival ethnic militia groups agreed to peace terms in the

Nigerian oil town of Warri. The peace agreement struck between the Ijaw and Itsekiri

militia groups crowned efforts by Delta State governor James Ibori to end fighting

between the two tribes over claims to land and oil-related benefits. More than 200 people

had died in ethnic clashes in Delta State over the previous year. But the peace deal failed

to address key demands of the Federated Niger Delta Ijaw Communities Group for

improved political representation and better access to the regions oil resources.

Government officials urged foreign oil companies to resume operations in the troubled

Niger Delta region that had been disrupted by a year of fighting. ChevronTexaco, which

had shut down 140,000 barrels per day of production, showed no immediate enthusiasm

to reactivate its closed facilities.

What is now known as the Nigerian Oil Crisis began on 25 September 2004 when the

Niger Delta Peoples Volunteer Force (NDPVF) threatened to attack oil facilities and

infrastructure in the Delta region. Royal Dutch Shell responded the next day by

evacuating 235 personnel from its oil fields. The NDPVF threatened to declare an all-out

war against Obasanjos government on 1 October and told all oil companies and their

foreign workers to leave the Delta. Obasanjo entered into negotiations with the group and

a ceasefire and disbarment plan were declared on 29 September.

21


22/30

By 5 October, Alhaji Mujahid Dokubo-Asari, the leader of the NDPVF, withdrew from

disarmament obligations. The rest of October was punctuated by a series of oil worker

strikes and fluctuations in the global price of oil. On 28 October, the NDPVF began to

turn its weapons over to the government.

In November, strikes continued and by the 15 th, the government agreed to lower

domestic oil prices. The unions suspended their strikes the next day. Unfortunately,

fighting began anew when members of the Niger Delta Vigilante (NDV) attacked the

Okrika region. The NDPVF responded by dropping at out disarmament plans. On 30

November, the Nigerian government revealed that over one million barrels of crude were

lost each week during November.

On 15 June 2005, six Shell workers (two Germans and two Nigerians) were kidnapped. A

group calling itself the Iduwini National Movement for Peace and Development claimed

responsibility. Three days later, all six workers were released but their kidnappers stated

that Shell was still under threat as it had yet to follow through on promises of

development in the region.

The situation between the government and the NDPVF worsened when Asari was

arrested for treason on 20 September 2005. The next day 300 NDPVF turned out for a protest armed with machetes and promising revenge. On 22 September, over 100

militants stormed an oil pumping station. Threats of more seizures led to another station

being closed but government forces were able to reopen both stations by 26 September.

Asari was formally charged with treason on 6 October. If convicted he could face the

death penalty. In what was probably a response to the charges, militants blew up a

pipeline and killed eight people in December. As a result of this attack Shell was forced

to delay crude shipments out of Nigeria.

In January 2006, a new militant group, the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger

River Delta (MEND), entered the fray. MEND is closely linked to the NDPVF and is

demanding, among other things, the release of Asari and $1.5 billion in compensation

from Shell for the pollution they claim it caused. MENDs first significant act was an

22


23/30


24/30

the pipelines are as old as twenty to twenty-five years. ]53 Even Shell admits that "most of

the facilities were constructed between the 1960s and early 1980s to the then prevailing

standards. SPDC [Shell Petroleum and Development Company] would not build them

that way today.54 Sabotage is performed primarily through what is known as

"bunkering",whereby the saboteur attempts to tap the pipeline, and in the process of

extraction sometimes the pipeline is damaged or destroyed. Oil extracted in this manner

can often be sold for cash compensation.

Sabotage and theft through oil siphoning has become a major issue in the Niger River

Delta states as well, contributing to further environmental degradation.55Damaged lines

may go unnoticed for days, and repair of the damaged pipes take even longer. Oil

siphoning has become a big business, with the stolen oil quickly making its way onto theblack market.56 While the popularity of selling stolen oil increases, the bodies are piling

up. In late December 2006, more than 200 people were killed in the Lagos region of

Nigeria in an oil line explosion.57The 2006 explosion started after the oil line was tapped

by people siphoning the oil, with intentions of black market resale.58

TheNigerian National Petroleum Corporationplaces the quantity of oil jettisoned into the

environment yearly at 2,300 cubic meters with an average of 300 individual spills

annually. However, because this amount does not take into "minor" spills, the World

Bank argues that the true quantity of oil spilled into the environment could be as much as

ten times the officially claimed amount.59 Among the largest individual spills include the

blowout of a Texaco offshore station which in 1980 dumped an estimated 400,000 barrels

(64,000 m3) of crude into the Gulf of Guinea and Shell's Forcados Terminal tank failure

53 Ibid54 Shell International Petroleum Company, Developments in Nigeria (London: March 1995)

55 Anderson, I. 2005. Niger River basin: A Vision for Sustainable Development. The World Bank:Washington D.C. Pp. 1-13156 CNN. 2006. Pipeline Explosion Kills at Least 200. Retrieved May 29, 2007, from

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/africa/12/26/nigeria.blast/index.html

57 Human Rights Watch. 1999. The Price of Oil. Retrieved November 9, 200758

59 Nwilo, Peter C., and Olusegun T. Badejo, comps. Impacts And Management of Oil Spill Pollution Alongthe Nigerian Coastal Areas. Retrieved on 20 May 2007

24
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_in_the_Niger_Delta#cite_note-HRW99-2%23cite_note-HRW99-2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siphonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_markethttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagoshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigerian_National_Petroleum_Corporationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Guineahttp://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/africa/12/26/nigeria.blast/index.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_in_the_Niger_Delta#cite_note-HRW99-2%23cite_note-HRW99-2http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/africa/12/26/nigeria.blast/index.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siphonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_markethttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagoshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigerian_National_Petroleum_Corporationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Guinea


25/30

which produced a spillage estimated at 580,000 barrels (92,000 m3). One source projects

that the total amount oil in barrels spilled between 1960 and 1997 is upwards of

100 million barrels (16,000,000 m3).60

Oil spillage has a major impact on the ecosystem into which it is released. Immense tracts

of the mangrove forests, which are especially susceptible to oil (this is mainly because it

is stored in the soil and re-released annually with inundation), have been destroyed. An

estimated 5 to 10% of Nigerian mangrove ecosystems have been wiped out either by

settlement or oil. The rainforest which previously occupied some 7,400 km of land has

disappeared as well.

Spills in populated areas often spread out over a wide area, taking out crops and

aquacultures through contamination of the groundwater and soils. Though the

consumption of dissolved oxygen by bacteria feeding on the spilled hydrocarbons also

contributes to the death of fishes. In agricultural communities, often a year's supply of

food can be destroyed by which, because of the careless nature of oil operations in the

Delta, will cause the environment to grow increasingly uninhabitable.

5.3.2 NATURAL GAS FLARING

Nigeria flares more natural gas associated with oil extraction than any other country on

the planet, with estimates suggesting that of the 3.5 billion cubic feet (100,000,000 m) of

associated gas (AG) produced annually, 2.5 billion cubic feet (70,000,000 m), or about

70% is wasted via flaring. This equals about 25% of the UK's total natural gas

consumption, and is the equivalent to 40% of the entire African continent's gas

consumption in 2001. All statistical data associated with gas flaring is notoriously

unreliable, but AG wasted during flaring is estimated to cost Nigeria US $2.5 billion on a

yearly basis.61

The reason for this practice, which is generally agreed world-wide to be wasteful both

economically and environmentally, is that in order to maximize production of crude oil,

60 ibid61 Human Rights Watch. 1999. The Price of Oil. Retrieved May 17, 2007, from http://www.hrw.org

25
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soilhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquacultureshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundwaterhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacteriahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gashttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_feethttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_flaringhttp://www.hrw.org/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soilhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquacultureshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundwaterhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacteriahttp://www.hrw.org/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gashttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_feethttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_flaring


26/30


27/30

CO2 emissions. As flaring in the west has been minimized, in Nigeria it has grown

proportionally with oil production.[29]. The volume of associated gas produced and

therefore burnt off, is directly linked to the amount of oil produced. So even though the

percentage of gas flared from 92% in 1981 has fallen to around 70%, the overall amount

of flared gas has increased from 2.1 billion to 2.5 billion cubic feet (60,000,000 m to

70,000,000 m).

It seems that the international community, the Nigerian government, and the oil

corporations are all in agreement that gas flaring has a negative impact and needs to be

stopped. However, in reality, efforts at stemming gas flaring have been slow to be

implemented. The practice of gas flaring as it has been allowed since oil production

began under British, has become set in stone, and would be costly to overhaul to reduceflaring. As a result, little is done by oil companies. This is in spite of the fact that gas

flaring in Nigeria has technically been illegal since 1984 under section 3 of the

"Associated Gas Reinjection Act". However, none of the regulations stipulated by this

document have ever been made public.

OPEC and Shell, the biggest flarer of natural gas in Nigeria, also claim that only 50% of

all associated gas are burnt off via flaring at present. However, this statistic is accepted

by few. The World Bank reported in 2004 that, "Nigeria currently flares 75% of the gas it

produces. While other sources make similar projections, between 70 and 75% is the

generally accepted percentile of gas flared.

Gas flares can have potentially harmful effects on the health and livelihood of the

communities in their vicinity, as they release a variety of poisonous chemicals. Just some

of combustion by-products include nitrogen dioxides, sulphur dioxide, volatile organic

compounds like benzene, toluene, xylene and hydrogen sulfide, as well as carcinogens

like benzapyrene and dioxin. Humans exposed to such substances can suffer from a

variety ofrespiratory problems, which have been reported amongst many children in the

Delta but have apparently gone uninvestigated. These chemicals can aggravate asthma,

cause breathing difficulties and pain, as well as chronic bronchitis. Of particular note is

that the chemical benzene, which is known to be emitted from gas flares in

27
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_in_the_Niger_Delta#cite_note-gasflaring-28%23cite_note-gasflaring-28http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPEChttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Dutch_Shellhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_dioxidehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulphur_dioxidehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volatile_organic_compoundshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volatile_organic_compoundshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzenehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toluenehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xylenehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_sulfidehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzapyrenehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dioxinhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respiratory_diseasehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asthmahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronic_bronchitishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzenehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_in_the_Niger_Delta#cite_note-gasflaring-28%23cite_note-gasflaring-28http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPEChttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Dutch_Shellhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_dioxidehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulphur_dioxidehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volatile_organic_compoundshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volatile_organic_compoundshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzenehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toluenehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xylenehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_sulfidehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzapyrenehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dioxinhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respiratory_diseasehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asthmahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronic_bronchitishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzene


28/30

undocumented quantities, is well researched as being a causative agent for leukemia and

other blood-related diseases. A study done by Climate Justice Estimates that exposure to

benzene would result in eight new cases ofcanceryearly in Bayelsa State alone.]63.

Often gas flares are located close to local communities, and regularly lack adequate

fencing or protection for villagers who may risk nearing the tremendous heat of the flare

in order to carry out their daily activities. Many of these communities claim that nearby

flares cause acid rain which corrodes their homes and other local structures, many of

which have zinc based roofing. Some people resort to the use of asbestos based material,

which is stronger in repelling acid rain deterioration. Unfortunately, this only contributes

to their own declining health and the health of their environment. 64Asbestos is said to be

the name of a group of similar minerals with separable, long, and thin fibers.

65

Asbestosis harmful when the fibers are in the air and are inhaled by human beings. After the fibers

are inhaled, it is extremely difficult to get them out of the lungs. Long-term exposure to

asbestos can cause fiber accumulation, which leads to scarring of the lung tissue and

inflammation.[33] Asbestos exposure increases the risk of forming lung cancer,

mesothelioma, and asbestosis.

Flares which are often older and inefficient are rarely relocated away from villages, and

are known to coat the land and communities in the area with soot and damage adjacent

vegetation. Almost no vegetation can grow in the area directly surrounding the flare due

to the tremendous heat it produces.

Other sordid impacts on the environment include adverse effects on fisheries and

Mangrove forests which continue to pose gargantuan problems and health hazards to the

volatile region. It cam be gleaned from the foregoing that the issue of Environmental

security is highly sensitive and as such should not be handled with kid gloves. The onus

rests on all stakeholders involved within and without the Niger Delta region to brace up

themselves and stem this ugly tide. Neglecting Environmental Security and the noble

ideals enshrined thereto will no doubt bring about lack of sustainable development,

63 ibid64 Center of Disease Control. 2007. Asbestos: Health Effects. Retrieved May 29, 2007, fromhttp://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/Asbestos/65 ibid

28
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leukemiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayelsa_Statehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rainhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinchttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestoshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_in_the_Niger_Delta#cite_note-32%23cite_note-32http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_in_the_Niger_Delta#cite_note-32%23cite_note-32http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lung_cancerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesotheliomahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestosishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soothttp://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/Asbestos/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leukemiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayelsa_Statehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_in_the_Niger_Delta#cite_note-gasflaring-28%23cite_note-gasflaring-28http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/Asbestos/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rainhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinchttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestoshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_in_the_Niger_Delta#cite_note-32%23cite_note-32http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lung_cancerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesotheliomahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestosishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soot


29/30

internal conflicts and ecological depletion the resultant effect of which is so grave and

better imagined. A cursory glance at the Niger Delta situation arouses a plethora of

issues, an avalanche of questions and a myriad concerns.

6.0. CHARTING A COURSE FORWARD

All said and done we have taken a circumspect and detailed look at the concept of

Environmental Security, its meaning and underlying tenets and the goals set to be

achieved. In a same breath we have traversed painstakingly through contemporary

concerns affecting the 21st century as it relates to environmental protection and/or

depletion. We have made a case and canvassed vociferously that the law via the

instrumentality of international law and Conventions, Protocols, Declarations (whatever

the nomenclature) etc stand up to this grueling challenge to chart a viable course wherein

law and order, peace and preservation, protection and tenable promises could be

crystallized in no distant future.

It is trite to note that the world is in a continuous flux and so the law must by its inherent

dynamism adapt speedily to the attendant vicissitudes. From Atmospheric pollution to

Global warming and Ozone layer depletion to environmental degradation and pollution of

watercourses and annihilation of sea animals, the globe is constantly in need of a

metamorphosing Legal order and this enervating task? This writer surmises that

International legislations has, is and will continually be in the forefront to exercise

oversight functions thereto.

Hence a remodeling of the Environmental security concept is justifiable, where more

robust national, continental and international legislations with stricter enforcement

measures and sanctions be put in place to inhibit the proliferation of harmful and

deleterious environmental practices capable of endangering the very existence of the

human race. Thus it behooves the United Nations and its members, regional and

29


30/30

continental organizations66 to act in a concerted and timeous manner, for the earth stands

in an incredibly precarious dilemma.

7.0. CONCLUSION

An important aspect in the relationship between environment and security is the impact

of conflict on the environment. Violent conflict, war, displaced persons, etc. may lead to

a decrease of environmental security and spiral up a vicious circle of scarcity and further

conflict. On the other hand, as stated recently by Adelphi Research, the sustainable use

of natural resources and joint efforts to protect the environment across national borders

and social divisions can contribute to conflict prevention and peace building. For

example, the predictions of future wars over access to water have thus far failed to come

true. On the contrary, various forms of cross-border water cooperation are contributing to

stability and peace in regions of latent conflict.

It has been touted in variegated quarters that the issue of environmental protection has

assumed a form of a fundamental Human right and shall permit no derogation in any

manner whatsoever this writer shares the same view. As earlier expatiated the

pertinence of the Environmental concept can never be overemphasized but even more

pertinent is the role of International Environmental law in actualizing this grandiose

concern. Utmost care and caution should be taken as so very much is at stake.

66 E.g. Organization of American states, African Union, European Union etc

remodeling the enviromental security concept

Documents