This article is written by Lazar Pop Ivanov and Marija Mirchevska. Pop Ivanov holds an MA in International Relations from King’s College London and an LLM from the Faculty of Law in Skopje. Mirchevska holds an MS in Global Crime, Justice and Security from the University of Edinburgh. The article was originally published as a paper on Article 1.
‘Pristina you take my breath away!’ ‘Hey, you and your children breathe the same air’ ‘Who is to blame that our city is grey?’ ‘Clean air is a matter of political choice!’ ‘Love is in the air, but there is no air!’ ‘Pray for Smog-je!’ ‘If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the pollution!’
Protest slogans with similar content were noticeable at both Pristina and Skopje demonstrations held in the past 3 years. Civil societies in both Kosovo and Macedonia showed severe discontent, engaging in street activism and institutional advocacy, challenging the dominant narrative of the political elites, which claimed to be unable or lacked willingness to address the high levels of air pollution in the countries. A factor that may have contributed to the growing dissent was the increased production and publication of domestic data or increased accessibility and media coverage of research produced by outside actors, which stirred a more informed public debate, followed by inquiries for public accountability (this goes without prejudices to other factors described by academic literature as contributing to social mobilization in the recent past such as social media, the role of elites, etc.). Needless to say, there is much more to be done in terms of improving reliability, consistency, and comparability of data in the Balkans, but some progress is likely, under pressure to approximate with European standards in statistics.
The World Health Organization notes that in 2017 six out of the ten most polluted cities in Europe, excluding Turkey, are in the Balkans – with Tetovo, a Macedonian town being in the top spot. The European Environmental Agency, relying on 2013 data, estimated that PM 2.5 pollution alone kills 18,310 people in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia and Macedonia every year. The World Bank reported that in Macedonia approximately 1,350 lives are lost annually due to fine particulate matter air pollution, costing the Macedonian economy €253 million, or 3.2 percent of its GDP. Similarly, the World Bank, back in 2013, estimated that air pollution in Kosovo causes 852 premature deaths annually which amounts to a cost between 38 million to 163 million euros. The Health and Environment Alliance estimates that the cost to health (due to existing coal plants in five Western Balkan countries) is up to €8.5 billion per year.
In terms of the severity of air pollution, urban areas such as Pristina, the Obiliq area, the Drenas area, and Mitrovica are of particular concern. Kosovo’s Strategy on Air Quality 2013-2022 identifies the following sources of pollution: the power plants of KEK (PPA and PPB), lignite mining, the industrial complex in Mitrovica, Ferronikel in Glogovac, the cement factory in Hani-Elezit-Sharcem, the central heating systems (Pristina, Gjakova, and Mitrovica) and others.
Coal power plants in the Western Balkans lead the list of Europe’s top polluters for emissions of particulate matter and sulphur dioxide. A recent study by the Health and Environment Alliance found 16 aging communist-era lignite plants in former Yugoslavia that emit as much pollution as all of the European Union’s 296 power plants combined. In Kosovo, the problem is only amplified in complexity as 87% of all energy production comes from ‘Kosova A’ and ‘Kosova B’ power plants in Obliq, which are overwhelmingly dependant on the burning of lignite.
Air pollution levels, especially in Skopje, Tetovo and Bitola are continuously worrisome. The 2018 Annual Report on the quality of the environment in Macedonia recognizes that particulate matter is the most critical source of pollution, as more than 62% of the households use wood and other material for heating. Other sources contributing significantly are industrial production and distribution of electricity. The state claims that most of the other pollution substances and emissions to be well under the maximum referent values.
The state’s response to air pollution requires closer examination. A particularly useful summary of the progress made on policy level can be found in the European Union’s yearly reports. On Chapter 27: Environment and Climate Change, Macedonia is assessed as being at some level of preparation, while Kosovo is said to be at an early stage of preparation on environment and climate change. In Macedonia, ‘some progress has been achieved in further aligning policies and legislation with the acquis, in water, nature protection and waste sectors in particular. However, significant efforts are needed in regards to implementation and enforcement’. Kosovo, on the other hand, has not achieved any progress, therefore ‘serious environmental problems continue to impact people’s livelihoods and health’.
To further elaborate, the Commission, referring to the situation on air quality in Macedonia, notes that while the transposition of legislation is closing to an end, the implementation lags behind. Progress has been made in the production of air quality data and its accessibility, namely through the web portal on air quality. However, inter-institutional cooperation and coordination, particularly between different levels of the executive government is insufficient. Context and location-specific plans to address the exceeding of the pollutants limit values have not been developed. Similarly, in Kosovo, while strategic documents are adopted, they lack proper enforcement. Additional measures should be adopted, such as individualized plans focusing on different types of pollution, particularly in urban areas, which tend to go well beyond the limit values (produced by the energy sector, household heating, the industrial sector pollution, road traffic). Urgent measures are needed to reduce household reliance on lignite heating.
The stalemate in improving air quality, suggests that a different approach may be needed, an approach that would legitimize using more radical measures. While ‘doing politics as usual’ has failed to deliver any tangible results, we believe that an approach that takes the issue beyond the normal, daily politics, qualifying it as an urgent, imminent threat may provide the tool for the much-needed mobilization of political will and resources. The said approach can be located in the academic writings on ‘securitization’ and ‘the concept on national security threats’.
Treating air pollution as a security threat will more likely set the ground for a collective response, which is shaped by the contribution from the various stakeholders, ranging from the civil society, the executive branch of government, the Parliament, the judiciary, and even the military. An illustrative example in point would be the treatment of climate change as a national security threat under Obama’s administration.
SECURITY IS WHAT WE MAKE OF IT!
Drawing on the theories of constructivism and securitization, the authors of this paper believe that national security issues are constructed, fluid, context-dependent and can change over time, which goes beyond the conventional (realist) understanding of security. Hence, we propose that the air pollution problem in both Kosovo and Macedonia should be treated as a national security threat. This threat has harmed the health of the people and created an economic burden on the health systems of these countries. In order to provide academic support to this notion, we have to go through an investigation in the realm of ‘security studies’.
The way we define threats to our national security is shaped by the different intellectual narratives and approaches in the field of security studies that have been influenced by the major theoretical debates in international relations (Katzenstein, 1996). Consequently, any investigation of air pollution as a national security threat has to include the theories that framed the debate in international relations and therefore in the field of security studies.
Buzan and Hansen (2009) suggest four core questions that inform the debate in international security studies: i) what should be the referent object of analysis in security studies, ii) should we include external and internal threats when discussing national security, iii) should we define security in a way that it extends beyond military capabilities and the use of force, and iv) is security inseparable from threats, dangers, and urgency. The answers to these questions are informed by our preferences in the international relations paradigms. Historically, one of the dominant theories in IR has been realism in both its classical and structural variants. For realists, ‘security’ means protecting the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the state. Realists also believe that the central threat for the security of states are the military capabilities of other actors. It is obvious that the referent object of analysis for the realists is the state, following the Hobbesian line of reasoning that if the state is secure the people are also safe.
In the realist paradigm, the ‘danger’ comes from outside and threats are predominantly external, so the protection of the sovereignty of the state from a hostile external environment is the primary goal of the national security. David Campbell argues that the state builds its legitimacy and identity by being the sole provider of security for these ‘external threats’, offering protection only to its citizens who in return should be loyal to the state. Realists believe that the greatest threats to the state can be dealt with by enhancing the military capabilities of the state and obtaining more power (Tickner, 1995).
Upon closer examination, one quickly learns though that ‘security’ is a contested term, both in its scope and depth. Proposals to expand the realist apparatus from its focus on traditional security concerns (such as military threats from other states/actors) have incorporated ‘issues such as human rights, economics, the environment, drug traffic, epidemics, crime, or social injustice’ (Baldwin, 1997). These calls for expanding the concept of security to include nonmilitary issues and to move away from the state-centered analysis were spearheaded by the Copenhagen school of thought and Barry Buzan’s book ‘People, States and Fear’. There, he argues that a holistic approach is needed when treating security as it brings closely together individual, national, and international security.
Another call for ‘broadening’ or ‘updating’ the concept of security comes from Ken Booth (1991) who points out that the problem with the realist/traditional view on security is that in today’s world as conventional interstate wars are growing rarer, the threats do not usually come from the military capabilities of other countries, but rather they take the form of: oppressive political regimes, human rights violations, environmental degradation, economic crises, ethnic problems, terrorism, diseases, crime etc. Paradoxically, the state, which is the center of analysis in the traditional views on international studies and noted by these theories as the ‘provider of security’, for millions of people across the globe, it is the primary source of security threats, conflict, fear, and instability.
An alternative view on national security is offered by the ‘human security’ concept, which offers a different analysis that moves away from the state-centered focus and as a referent object takes the individuals and the communities. In its analytical scope human security examines issues like: ‘housing conditions, pollution, health, poverty, crime, and political equality’ as existential threats. Similarly, Ken Booth (1991) offers the argument that ‘emancipation’ is the guarantee for security. Namely, he argues that if we understand emancipation as ‘the freeing of people (individuals and groups) from those physical and human constraints which stop them carrying out what they would freely choose to do’, then we have to reason that the threat of war and military conflict can be classified as security threats but so are non-military threats (political oppression, education, poverty etc.).
The central argument in this paper draws on the theory of constructivism and in particular the securitization of national security threats. We follow the reasoning of most constructivists who believe that the terms ‘security and insecurity’ are both social constructions created by our shared values, norms, history, and identity. We combine this insight from the constructivist theory with the ‘securitization approach’, that we found rather useful for our analysis. This approach believes that there is no set (objective) truth about what security is; rather, it focuses on how security threats are constructed (Hammertadt, 2014). To explain ‘securitization’ we turn to the Copenhagen school, which defines securitization as ‘a successful speech act through which an intersubjective understanding is constructed within a political community to treat something as an existential threat to a valued referent object, and to enable a call for urgent and exceptional measures to deal with the threat’ (Buzan and Wæver, 2003).
We would also like to mention the extension to the securitization theory presented by Floyd which states that securitization is only complete if the speech act is followed by a relevant behavior change by a relevant actor in the process. So, when an issue is going through a successful process of securitization, its urgency and priority will be established. With that, the issue is being figuratively taken out from the realm of everyday ordinary politics and transferred into the realm of urgent politics, where exceptional tools available for tackling the problem are made available and justified due to the nature of the threat (Buzan, Wæver, de Wilde 1998). To summarize, securitization as a speech act needs to fulfil three criteria: an actor needs to ‘claims that a referent object is existentially threatened, demand the right to take extraordinary countermeasures to deal with that the threat, and convinces an audience that rule-breaking behavior to counter the threat is justified.’ To summarize, we believe that security threats are not given, or that they have some intrinsic qualities that define them, but rather that we have constructed and presented them as such. In accordance with this point of view we propose that air-pollution is labeled by the political factors as a national security threat and that it undergoes a process of securitization.
GAME CHANGE
Buzan (2008) highlights that ‘securitization is when something is successfully constructed as an existential threat to a valued referent object and that construction is then used to support exceptional measures in response’. He also notes that sometimes securitization attempts can be successful, partially or completely unsuccessful. In his overview of ‘securitized’ threats in the post-Cold War period, Buzan states that the ‘war on terror’ is a successful example of macro-securitization, recognizing that some policies/securitizing moves of the United States have been contested in other places in the world (such as the Iraq intervention from 2003).
If we acknowledge the position taken by Wilde (2008) that ‘security analysis begins with risk assessment, and whether a risk will be securitized depends on its perception’, one can argue that air pollution and the risk it causes to individuals across the globe matches or exceeds other conventional risks and threats. To illustrate, the World Health Organization found that outdoor air pollution has caused 4.2 million premature deaths in 2016 and 91% of the entire world population lives in an environment that fails to meet the minimum air quality standards. In contrast, terrorism has been the cause of 25.621 deaths in 2016 as noted by the U.S Department of State. Earlier in this paper, we also shared data on how air pollution has affected these two Balkan countries specifically. Therefore, we have the foundations to make the case that this issue needs to be securitized as well, because clearly thus far, that has not been the case and this issue is treated in the realm of everyday normal politics.
When an issue is treated as a security threat, society will more easily accept a trade-off. In the case of terrorism, societies across the globe are more likely to accept a limitation of their own liberties (for example the right to privacy), in exchange for an increased capability of the state to conduct surveillance, which is presented as a precondition to guarantee people’s safety. In the case of environmental protection, the trade-off can vary, for example between higher economic costs, sacrificing personal convenience, restructuring public institutions, etc. on the one hand and improvement of air quality on the other.
An example of an action that might be seen as legitimate, regardless of the economic cost, is the termination or significant alteration of already signed contracts with private entities for projects deemed harmful to the environment. Such acts would inevitably require payment of penalties (for example, if the gas pipeline set to cross through the mountain Vodno in Skopje undergoes a change in the route, this would be an additional expense of at least €20 million). Other measures with similar effect would be the expropriation of privately owned land or the introduction of a class action in domestic jurisprudence.
A measure that does not directly require a trade-off, but can be seen as legitimate once air pollution receives recognition as a security threat, would be including the Minister for Environment and Spatial Planning in the country’s highest institutional security mechanisms such as the Council for National Security in Macedonia or Kosovo’s Security Council, as proposed by NGOs in India. Regardless of whether one decides to include the Minister as a permanent member of the Council or not, the threat of air pollution should be put on the agenda of the Security Council.
As with other contemporary security threats whose causes originate outside of the national borders and whose consequences are increasingly hard to be contained, regional cooperation seems inevitable. A case in point are India and Pakistan who are traditionally perceived as rivals, but now find a common enemy in tackling the deadly air pollution problem. A regional approach in the Balkans seems like a much-needed step further, given that for example 100% of the Balkan population, since 1990 has been exposed to PM 2.5 levels exceeding WHO
guideline value.
Finally, securitizing air pollution would motivate different stakeholders to engage in litigations, therefore using the justice system to their own advantage. Given the treatment environmental protection increasingly enjoys within the EU, it should come as no surprise that in April 2018 the EU Commission referred ‘six countries to Europe’s highest court for failing to meet EU air quality standards’ (Oroschakoff). In September 2018, the European Court of Auditors noted that ‘most Member States still do not comply with the EU’s air quality standards and are not taking enough effective action to improve air quality’, asking for a prioritization of the problem within the EU.
CONCLUSION
If we manage to get air pollution through the process of a successful securitization and have the problem labeled as a national security threat, we will be in the position to approach the issue in a ‘win-win’ manner. This approach will help us create a platform that will bring people together to find solutions to a common problem with a level of urgency, in a similar fashion that climate change has been presented as a security threat, thus adding urgency to the need for intergovernmental negotiations (Hammerstadt, 2014). Just the ‘national security label’ attached right next to the problem of air pollution will have a game-changing power for social and political mobilization (Buzan in Wæver, 1995). The Kosovo/Macedonian elites will have the political opportunity to use tools and policies that are otherwise unavailable to them for use in regular everyday politics. On the other hand, they will have an energized and mobilized political community that has it in its self-interest to pursue policies that will solve the problem.
REFERENCES
Baldwin, D. (1997). The concept of security. Review of International Studies, 23(1), pp.5-26.
Booth, K. (1991). Security and emancipation. Review of International Studies, 17(04), p.313.
Buzan, B. (1983). People, States, and Fear: The National Security Problem in International Relations. Wheatsheaf Books LTD.
Buzan, B. (2008). The Changing Agenda of Military Security. In: H. Günter Brauch, Ú. Oswald Spring, C. Mesjasz, J. Grin, P. Dunay, N. Chadha Behera, B. Chourou, P. Kameri Mbote and P. Liotta, ed., Globalization and Environmental Challenges. Springer, pp.553-560.
Buzan, B. and Hansen, L. (2012). The evolution of international security studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Buzan, B. and Wæver, O. (2003). Regions and powers; the structure of international security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Buzan, B., Wæver, O. and Wilde, J. (1998). Security: A New Framework for Analysis. London: Lynn Rienner Publishers.
Gilani, I. (2018). Pollution: A threat to national security?. [online] DNA. Available at: https://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-pollution-a-threat-to-national-security-2559086 [Accessed 5 Nov. 2018].
Government, Republic of Kosovo (2013). Kosovo Environmental Strategy (KES). Prishtina.
Hammerstadt, A. (2014). The Securitization of Forced Migration. In: E. Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, G. Loescher, K. Long and N. Sigona, ed., The Oxford Handbook of Refugee and Forced Migration Studies. Oxford University Press.
Katzenstein, P. (1996). The culture of national security. New York: Columbia University Press.
National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism A Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Center of Excellence Based at the University of Maryland (2017). Annex of Statistical Information Country Reports on Terrorism 2016. [online] Available at: https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/272485.pdf [Accessed 5 Nov. 2018].
Republic of Kosovo (2018). Annual Report State of the Environment in Kosovo.
Tickner, A. (1995). Re-Visioning Security. In: K. Booth and S. Smith, ed., International Relations Theory Today. Polity Press, pp.175-197.
Wæver, O. (2018). Securitization and Desecuritization. In: R. D. Lipschutz, ed., On Security.
Columbia University Press.
0 comments