Long Time No Sea

This case study shows that the cause of climate change is not limited to emissions of greenhouse gases; it is also highly related to our attitude and the way we treat natural resources. The Kyoto Protocol has spotted out the main causes of climate change, but reducing emission of greenhouse gases alone cannot solve the problem of global climate change. Over the past few weeks, we saw that over-exploitation of natural resources can result in important threats towards human security, potentially in the form of violent conflicts: “As the world population grows, its escalating resource needs place ever-increasing pressure on land. This creates conflicts among competing user groups, and often results in adverse impacts both to the land and to its living and non-living resources.” But over-exploitation can also lead to climate change, a truly global phenomenon.

We have discussed water scarcity two weeks ago, and we are discussing climate change this week. But did you know that  water itself can have an impact on climate change? This week, we are going to share a real story on climate change, called “Long time no sea”. The “sea” we are talking about is the Aral Sea in Central Asia, an inland sea lying between southern Kazakhstan and northwest Uzbekistan. Once the world’s fourth largest lake, the Aral Sea has been shrinking for the last 40 years because of diversion of its two sources, the Syr Darya and the Amu Darya Rivers. By 2007, the Aral Sea had declined to 10% of its original size and split into three separate lakes. Please click here to see how the size of the sea decreased from the 1960s. 

 

The reason for “long time no sea” was the over-pumping of water for cotton and rice production, causing the remaining water to become highly salinated. As a result, not only did the “sea’s” 24 species of freshwater fish die out, even fishing boats found themselves marooned in the middle of a desert !! The Kazakh and Uzbek had to say goodbye to their beach, harbour and fishing industry. But there is more to it.

 

As water plays an important role in regulating the climate system,  over-pumping has resulted in distortions in the climate: “with the reduction of the Aral Sea’s size, the surrounding climate has changed, becoming more continental with shorter, hotter, rainless summers and longer, colder, snowless winters. The growing season has been reduced to an average of 170 days a year, while dust storms rage on more than 90 days annually.” The IPCC also suggests that the drying off process and subsequent desertification and salinization of soils resulted in a temperature increase of 1.5 C within 100-150 km of the edge of the sea.  The reason behind this is that ”The temperature of ocean helps regulate the amount of carbon dioxide released or absorbed into the water“. Although we may think that 1.5 C is minimal, it can cause serious impacts to the ecosystem including human lives – e.g. the dust storms which are undoubtedly threats towards human security. 

 

You may be wondering: “Where was the international community?”. Actually, the international community did take actions, but it was too late already: “There have been international and worldwide studies done on the Aral Sea and many different organizations and people have tried various ways to keep the flow of water directed into the Aral Sea. However, it comes down to the fact that it seems it is too late for anything to be done“.

 

Therefore, Human Security advocates should not limit themselves at pressuring the USA to sign up the Kyoto Protocol in the coming climate change conference; they also work to ensure that our natural resources are properly used. It undoubtedly requires collaboration within the international community. While poorer developing countries rely heavily on natural resources to produce primary commodities and maintain their living standard, they may not have enough knowledge and technology to manage their natural resources. Action should be taken as early as possible by the international community or other cases of “long time no sea’ will keep repeating, resulting in an accelerated rate of climate change…

 

By Tong Yui Wa Andy & Yu Wai Yan Becky

If you would like to know more about how Aral Sea is going on, you can look at this article for the recent projects to save the sea! 

Community adaptation – the key to security in the face of climate change?

The international community has so far failed to adequately address the problem of climate change. Although there is still a case for mitigation efforts, it is clear that climate change is already under way. If states ever find it beneficial to join a concerted global effort on emissions cuts, it is likely to be for economic rather than humanitarian reasons. By committing themselves to climate change mitigation, states may earn income from existing and potential emission markets, gain advantages in the emerging fields of green technology and energy, and maybe more importantly,  enhance their chances of long-term economic growth and stability. Therefore, a human security approach is not likely to be influential, effective or even needed in the area of global climate change mitigation.

Instead, human security advocates could help by concentrating on the people affected by climate change and on decreasing its negative impacts.  This can be done through two broad strategies: disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation. While the former diminishes the impacts of natural disasters and decreases the occurrence of human-induced ones, the latter concentrates on helping societies adjust to new circumstances brought about by climate change. Together, they may enable people to live with the changes they are facing. 

One example of a successful local implementation of these strategies is found in Nepal’s Jugedi stream watershed, an area suffering from climate change-related disasters in the form of prolonged droughts and floods. Since 2004, the INGO Practical Action has implemented a project in cooperation with local NGOs and poor rural communities aiming at climate change adaptation and resilience through livelihood diversification, environmental protection, and disaster prevention. The measures have included climate change and disaster awareness campaigns, emergency preparation and early warning systems for floods, as well as the introduction of new crops and landslide-resistant agricultural methods such as hedgerow technology. Also, simple systems to measure precipitations and other climate variables have been installed at schools, helping produce accurate place-specific predictions for future adaptation strategies.

This is a more realistic and practical approach than campaigning for international mitigation, since risk reduction and adaptation initiatives can concentrate on this type of narrow-scoped, local programs. Risk reduction and adaptation strategies should, as in Nepal, be closely linked to local development. They should address local needs, and empower people to improve their own lives rather than make communities dependent on aid. The main role of governments and IGOs should be to provide support for community and NGO initiatives and to develop policies that enable and facilitate local action. With the active involvement of local communities, application of local skills and knowledge, and implementation of locally controlled projects with limited scope , solutions under this approach are more likely to be both cost-efficient, well-targeted, and sustainable.

The projects in Nepal have been well received on both governmental and local levels, and the methods developed are being incorporated in regional and national strategies. On the whole, these projects have left communities more educated, less vulnerable, and better equiped to cope with the effects of climate change.

Would it be better to concentrate on adaptation rahter than on mitigation, as climate change is already a threat to human security? Or should we focus on emissions cuts in order to prevent an even larger impact in the future?

Anna

Asian Water Wars

Many believe that water disputes will be able to generate peaceful coexistences and actually catalyze peace talks as shown by historic examples; fifty agreements between countries relating to rivers, dams, water basins and more. Also, there are at least 263 water boundaries between countries total, but there seems to have been little conflict along many of the borders in the past.

We feel the future outlook is a lot dimmer. We suggest that at the moment, as it has been in the past, water is a priority for country leaders who rate the immediate problems of border disputes, ideological/identity/religious conflicts and energy resources higher than anything else. However, given that environmental protection and climate change policies are slowly rising, the new focus is on energy conservation, climate/ecosystem preservation, and resource allocation.

China is (or will soon be) suffering a water crisis, partly due to the fact that it has made little investment in water and water treatment infrastructure, while experiencing exponential growth. China is rapidly expanding and becoming a world power and its demands on many resources are growing, but water is a finite resource with no alternative. Even if bigger, first world countries manage to solve their problems in time, there is no guarantee that any of the smaller countries will react in time to avoid conflict.

With less water available countries like China have already diverted their water sources to its cities and industrial sectors, relying on buying in grain from abroad using their foreign reserves. This leaves poorer countries with very limited options. As the economist hints, most of the existing treaties or informal arrangements on water are asymmetrical in power, countries without foreign reserves might have to resort to armed conflict in order to challenge the terms dictated by the bigger bullies and afford foreign food sources . Eventually the challenge is for policy makers right now to make the changes that will prevent future conflicts that might not even affect riparian countries but have global impact.

The impact is made all the more dangerous by global warming; China’s glaciers are melting, their pollution is increasing, and aquifers are drying up. The north is experiencing droughts quite regularly, which are increasingly leading  to bad desertification and severe sandstorms. This, in addition to its excessive pollution, is leading to food security problems, and has an abysmal impact on environmental health.

China is in such shape due to its shocking economic growth, and its sometimes wasteful use of resources (water included). This soon to be economic powerhouse could lose water completely or parts of it within 30 years. This is incredibly dangerous for the rest of the world in terms of water usage, resource allocation, and especially economy, we can’t deal with another economic downturn soon after the current one.

This may also promote inter-state conflict, China has already built several dams upstream of other countries in Southeast Asia, apparently they are considering building more on the Mekong, which would directly affect the countries of Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and Thailand. They are also making developments in Tibet that could negatively affect water that flows into India. A third party may need to step in as in the case of India and Pakistan and help push a new treaty between India and China, and perhaps other Asian countries as well. Asia has the some of the fastest growing economies, military expenditures, populations, and resource competition with the least amount of fresh water in the world (except Antarctica). Water treaties might be the only thing that could prevent military conflicts. They may help the recent military exercise between China and India remain simply an exercise.

From Hong Kong to London

For those who don’t already know, I will be posting from London for the next academic year.  Have just arrived, so am looking forward to exploring the IR/human security resources which the city has to offer.  Will be in touch….