Environmental security notions have evolved over the past 30 years. Once a sub-field of Security and Peace Studies focusing on how environmental issues correlate with modern security theories and policies, the concept is rapidly merging environmental and security sectors. Former Greek Naval Officer in the Hellenic Navy and current environmental security scholar Dimitrios Kantemnidis’ expertise sits at the center of the two merging fields. His military background informs perspectives on growing environmental security risks and potential responses for civilian and military actors.

As a career Naval Officer, Kantemnidis became well versed in how environmental phenomena can impact the success of military operations. He also witnessed the significant environmental damage military exercises can cause through mass consumption of fossil fuel, anti-submarine exercises, and weapons testing. Today, Kantemnidis researches the integration of environmental security by EU actors as a Fellow of the European Doctoral School at the European Security and Defense College and a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Environment at Aegean University. In a recent interview Kantemnidis shared these reflections on environment and security developments in the European Union and NATO.

Is there a consensus on the meaning of ‘Environmental Security’ among various actors?

Dimitrios Kantemnidis (DK): Academic debate on the subject has not resulted in a unanimous definition of environmental security for two reasons. First, there is no consensus on the term ‘security’ as it means different things for different actors. For instance, the United Nations uses concepts of human security, governments are interested in national security, and the European Union is interested in the security of its citizens and its regional security. So, we have different perspectives on the term security by different actors.

Second, there are numerous sources of environmental risk, as well as a wide range of resilience capabilities for various stakeholders. Water scarcity, for example, has different impacts in California than in Ethiopia. Sea level rise because of climate change has different impacts on the small Pacific Island of Tuvalu and on Pakistan than it does on Russia or Denmark. As a result, some environmental problems are of direct interest to some countries for security reasons, while other countries do not face the same threats, making it difficult to make priorities.

What are some commonalities between military and civilian approaches to environmental security?

DK: Both military and civilian approaches to environmental security recognize climate change as a major trend that must be addressed quickly and globally. Major security actors and civilian institutions warn that climate change has the potential to disrupt peace and stability on local, regional, and global scales. Hence, we often come across environmental reports by civilian institutions such as think-tanks, nongovernmental organizations, or the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that warn us about the impact of environmental change on human security.

We also have security actors such as the UN Security Council, NATO, the European Defense Agency, and the EU Military Committee, that conduct analyses on issues like environmental degradation, climate change, and resource scarcity. The debate over the environmental risks posed by military operations and the risks to individuals posed by short- and long-term environmental changes started in academia and has spread to security institutions.

What are some differences between military and civilian approaches to environmental security?

DK: There are significant differences between military and civilian approaches to environmental security. The debate over the environmental risks posed by military operations and the risks to individuals posed by short- and long-term environmental changes started in academia and has now spread to security institutions.

The role of military institutions is to protect citizens first and foremost from military threats and second from indirect threats such as environmental ones. For example, NATO’s mandate states unequivocally that if there is a conflict between operational imperatives and Environmental Protection principles and policies, the operational imperatives will prevail. Both military and civilian entities realize that differences are important. For environment and security communities to collaborate, they will need to have mutual understanding, joint meetings, conferences, and joint research efforts.

​​Why is it important to talk about environmental and security threats together, instead of approaching the two separately?

DK: First, from an environmental standpoint, it is important that security actors’ objectives are met with as little environmental impact as possible. It is feasible to avoid environmental damage caused by military exercises if scientific knowledge and environmental protection technologies are integrated into the military.

Second, the ability of several security actors to forecast environmental changes may have a significant impact on their strategic planning. On an operational level, armed forces need to become more environmentally resilient, reduce their environmental footprint, and gain energy autonomy to operate in remote areas. In all of these dimensions, the environmental community could inform the security community.

If we realize that the environment and security are inextricably linked, we will be able to design interdisciplinary studies that will benefit both communities.

How can NATO & EU leaders proactively prepare for environmental security threats?

DK: Reaching environmental security objective requires sustained and broad leadership support from EU institutions and NATO agencies. Today, political leaders and high-level policymakers can play a critical role in maintaining a basic consensus—as expressed by the United Nations over the last two decades—and translating it into real ownership and concrete commitments among Member States. Leaders in the EU and NATO must integrate their understanding of environmental risks into all aspects of their work, including diplomacy, development, and defense.