Northern Warning Lights: Ambiguities of Environmental Security in Finland and Sweden

Abstract

As the literature on environmental security has evolved and widened, knowledge of the full range of potential consequences of environmental change for different societies remains scattered. This article contributes to a more comprehensive approach to the implications of environmental change by providing a three-level framework of the security impacts. In particular, it will address gaps in knowledge by pointing out the relevance of geopolitical and structural factors behind environmental security impacts. The article will focus on the cases of two countries, Finland and Sweden—both seen as stable, high-income democracies that are well equipped to adapt to climate risks. Yet even under these conditions, preparedness to threat-prevention will not follow without a recognition of the full range of risks, including ones that are linked to socio-economic and geopolitical factors. On the basis of the Finnish and Swedish cases, the article proposes an analytical framework of three categories of environmental security impacts: local, geopolitical and structural.

A Lot of Talk, But Little Action—The Blind Spots of Nordic Environmental Security Policy

“…This may be partly explained by the theoretical literature, which covers an extensive scope but lacks a degree of coherence, making it difficult to pinpoint specific policies. We describe the theoretical approaches in more detail in a companion article [16].…”

“…Overall, the environmental security policies adopted so far have a focus on the interconnections between environment and conflict or, to a lesser degree, human security. In light of our analysis of the security impacts of environmental change [16], they therefore have potential to address local and geopolitical impacts, although no overarching approach has emerged to ensure coherence or coordination. Meanwhile, current policies almost entirely neglect the security consequences of mitigating environmental change and adapting to it.…”

“…Based on our categorisation of three different kinds of security impacts of environmental change, presented in another article [16], we argue that environmental security should in fact involve a broad range of sectors. In our view, the consequences of ecological change and the efforts to mitigate and adapt to it are experienced throughout society, so environmental security policy also needs to be shaped by various actors.…”

“…We use the Nordic countries Finland and Sweden as examples to illustrate how the security impacts of environmental change are currently incorporated into security and foreign policy. Relying on our three-level framework of environmental security impacts [16], we illustrate what is missing from current policy and how the inclusion of the neglected parts can help policy-making on environmental security.…”

Enhancing Security, Sustainability and Resilience in Energy, Food and Water

“…Emma Hakala and her co-authors contributed two articles to the Special Issue, both analysing the concept of environmental security and its linkages to general security discourse in Finland and Sweden. Their first article looks at the environmental threats through a novel three-level framework that brings analytically together local, geopolitical and structural impacts related to such threats [52]. Through exploration of the interactions between environmental change and society at different levels, the authors emphasise the importance of geopolitical and structural factors.…”