Security Policies on Water, Securitization of Water

Water as a Security Issue

Water is an existential natural resource. It is essential for socioeconomic development, healthy ecosystems and human survival in general. As the resource is closely linked to all aspects of human life, the overall health, well-being and productivity of humanity depends on an adequate water supply. However, the consequences of industrialization, increased demand, overuse and degradation, as well as global warming, are putting increasing pressure on global freshwater resources. For example, according to UN Water, global water use has been increasing by about 1% per year since the 1980s, with no end in sight. Therefore, the list of regions with insufficient water potential is constantly expanding, with more than two billion people in the world currently living in severe water shortages and four billion people suffering from severe water scarcity at least thirty days a year (UN Water, 2019). (UN Water, 2019).

Given these figures, access to adequate water resources in water-scarce regions can be instrumentalized to build or maintain political power. Such dynamics are of particular importance in transboundary watersheds, which cover about half of the world's land surface and are home to 40% of the world's population. Neighboring states in transboundary watersheds often have different interests in water use and allocation.  As these countries see water as a key tool for economic independence and self-sufficiency for national security, there is a possibility that tensions could escalate and even escalate into hot conflict in some parts of the world. 

The most common example of the securitization of a natural resource has been transboundary water. In transboundary water negotiations and allocations, water is treated as a national security priority in various transboundary river basins.

The likelihood of hot conflicts between countries over water is not very high. However, it can be said that tensions between countries have increased in regions such as the Middle East and Central Asia where there are physical water problems. These rising tensions, coupled with the increasingly visible effects of climate change, have contributed to water security becoming a key term and a central paradigm in recent years (Aggestam, 2015). As a consequence, securitization has received less attention in studies in this field, and to a lesser extent, desecuritization has received much attention (Wæver, 1995; Cook & Bakker, 2012; Fischhendler & Nathan, 2015).

Water Security and Securitization 

In this analysis, water security is defined as "the capacity of countries to secure sustainable access to water of acceptable quality in sufficient quantities to protect ecosystems and sustain social well-being and socio-economic development in an environment of peace and political stability, and to protect against water-borne pollution and natural disasters" (UN Water, 2013).

Securitization is understood here as an expression that treats and defines an issue as a security issue, thus placing it outside the realm of "normal" political action (Buzan, Wæver, & de Wilde 1998). Securitization is achieved through a successful act of securitization, i.e. the identification of a specific reference object as an existential threat to a specific target audience. When sufficiently accepted by this audience, a securitization move legitimizes emergency measures that transcend common rules of social interaction, including violence. 

The likelihood of securitization is generally expected to be higher in conflict situations. De-securitization can be seen as a process of the opposite, i.e. moving an issue "away from exceptional politics and back into the realm of normal politics" (Aggestam, 2015, p. 328). De-securitization is explained as "a process by which a political community ceases to regard something as an existential threat to a valued object of reference, or reduces or stops seeking extraordinary measures to deal with the threat it has ceased to regard" (Buzan and Wæver, 2003, p. .489).

Securitization and De-Securitization 

More precisely, securitization is the acceptance of something as a threat to the existence of a valued subject and its use to support extraordinary measures taken in response. De-securitization, on the other hand, is when something that was previously considered a threat is no longer considered a threat and is acted upon accordingly.

As Siegfried Jäger (2004, p. 158) puts it, "discourse is the flow of social knowledge over time"; therefore, "everything we perceive, experience, sense is expressed through socially constructed and typified knowledge" (Keller, 2013, p. 61), in other words: discourses exert significant influence by structuring, without fully determining, social actors' perceptions and interpretations of reality and the actions and practices that follow. A discourse can be considered dominant when its basic statements are accepted as true by the vast majority of a given social group (Keller, 2011).

According to Waever, securitization is a discursive phenomenon and a political process that is constructed as a threat to a subject that needs to be protected and is considered important. Therefore, it is used to legitimize urgent and exceptional measures to be taken. In other words, it is stated that a phenomenon is under threat and this issue takes absolute priority over other issues. This is because the concept of security is about survival, and the specific nature of security threats justifies the use of extraordinary measures.De-securitization is when a phenomenon previously perceived as a threat is no longer perceived as a threat in the current situation.

Like other forms of resource-based securitization, the securitization of water is primarily triggered by scarcity, power asymmetry (Fischhendler, 2015; Fischhendler & Nathan, 2016) and negative background events, and is further encouraged by lack of trust, inability to cooperate and resource nationalism. 

Securitization has a direct impact on water governance. Crisis situations such as wars and natural disasters such as droughts or floods can serve to legitimize the use of securitization discourse. In such "crisis situations", the explanation of "national security" is sometimes invoked to strengthen the political-security circles and exclude civil society from the policy-making process (Fischhendler, 2015). 

Under these conditions, cooperation between countries on shared resources can be difficult, and lack of cooperation can exacerbate environmental risks. Rising water problems do not only have environmental consequences: In 2007, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon drew attention to the negative impacts of water shortages on food security (Allouche et al., 2011).

The Copenhagen School was one of the first schools of thought to address de-securitization. According to the Copenhagen School, securitization is the process by which states take extraordinary actions using security rhetoric (such as the "water wars" metaphor) on issues they wish to turn into a security issue (Buzan et al., 1998). De-securitization is the reverse process whereby high-profile issues are de-escalated and brought back into the realm of normal politics, where exceptional measures are legitimized (Waever, 1995; Buzan & Waever, 2003). Buzan et al. (1998) explain securitization as the promotion of cooperation. Securitization makes cooperation over many natural resources more complex: Buzan et al. are not concerned with water management per se, the logic of their argument is that cooperation on water resources can only be achieved through the de-securitization of water. As politically constructed discourses on achieving and maintaining water security diminish, the space for cooperation expands.To promote water peacebuilding and effective water management between countries, such a de-securitization of water needs to take place at various levels: formal, structural and cultural.

We can identify a number of indicators of water securitization: structural indicators (e.g. contested buffer zones around water infrastructure); institutional indicators (e.g. the inclusion of the issue in high-level agreements; the exclusion of civil society from decision-making); and discursive indicators (the use of alarmist language that signals existential threat; narratives that legitimize military intervention, e.g. "water wars"). Thus, the securitization of water has the potential to create new or exacerbate existing conflicts by reducing the possibility of cooperation. In order to assess the prospects for regional cooperation and diplomacy on water in the Middle East context, it is necessary to analyze both the securitization and the challenges of de-securitizing water (Diriöz 2020).

The Role of Civil Society

Whether we are talking about the securitization or the de-securitization of water, civil society can play a crucial role in both areas. Where de-securitization is desirable, civil society can play an active role in removing the barriers created by securitization and increasing mutual trust between countries, even if this role varies depending on the democratic form of governance and its impact is limited.  Where securitization is necessary, civil society can also play a key role, not by de-securitizing, but by using securitization and threat perception to encourage governments to take urgent action to address environmental and water security challenges. Thus, both of the competing hypotheses outlined above envisage a crucial role for civil society.

In general, the role of civil society in promoting the efforts of regional actors to come together and initiate dialogue among themselves is a significant gap in past cooperation initiatives.  While current political conditions do not seem conducive to the cooperative win-win co-management of water among the countries of the region, it is vital to continue the dialogue. Continued dialogue is important to coordinate needs in emergencies. In the longer term, it can contribute to building trust and potentially allow for temporary but workable agreements, if not permanent solutions (Diriöz 2020).Continued dialogue can also act as a threshold to prevent the environment from moving further and further away from cooperation and into chronic intractability. 

In general, the issue of water security cannot only be addressed through bilateral diplomacy between countries, but also requires multilateral diplomacy.

Continued dialogue between countries requires Track-II diplomacy between civil institutions such as civil society and universities, in addition to official delegations. This requires a stronger and more effective civil society structure that can contribute to negotiations in transboundary watersheds. Civil society can play an important role in mobilizing public opinion by raising awareness and thus influencing governments on the importance and urgency of cooperation in transboundary water resources (Diriöz 2020).

However, the impact of civil society organizations is limited and cannot solve all securitization and de-securitization challenges.  Civil society can only play an indirect role in raising public awareness and influencing governments. Building long-term cooperation between countries in troubled regions often requires not only confidence-building links but also major changes in the political climate of the region.  Given the opportunity, however, civil society can play a crucial role in sustaining and advancing cooperation.  The activities of civil societies can complement official diplomacy by defusing tensions and turning some issues into areas of cooperation rather than conflict (Diriöz 2020).

Challenges to Water Security and Cooperation

Given the vital role of water, control over water represents a form of political power. Physical water scarcity is an underlying cause of resource nationalism in many regions, making cooperation between countries on this issue difficult.

There are many definitions of water security. Some of these definitions focus on the availability of clean, safe, potable and sanitary water (e.g. Sikri, 2010); some focus on societal needs from an anthropocentric perspective (e.g. Kibaroğlu et al., 2007), while others attempt to adopt a more interdisciplinary definition that emphasizes the sustainability of the entire watershed environment (as discussed in Cook & Bakker, 2012). 

The interdisciplinary approach considers water as a strategic resource, whose societal and environmental demand is a constant and vital need. In regions with physical water shortages, access to water can become a major source of conflict and insecurity between countries, with examples dating back to antiquity (Crawley, 2009). Given these tensions, water as a basic necessity can be very easily "securitized" as a national resource. Moreover, countries seek to secure safe access to clean water, which is seen as a prerequisite for their survival. As a way of doing so, they may also turn to resource nationalism.  Securitization can also be used as a tool to prompt governments and societies to reassess threats to the environment.

 By its very nature, securitization emerges as a barrier to cooperation as political rhetoric increases in the face of perceived security challenges. In order to have meaningful cooperation and dialogue, this tension needs to be reduced. However, while dialogue may be difficult under conditions of securitization, desecuritization cannot take place without changing the current discourse. This is where civil society can act as an effective force for a reassessment of both governmental positions and regional risk. There are some initiatives to promote regional cooperation, supported by civil society engagement.  However, these often come at a late stage, limiting the potential impact of this important actor. 

References

Allouche, J., Nicol, A., & Mehta, L. (2011). Water security: Towards the human securitization of water. Whitehead J. Dipl. & Int’l Rel., 12, 153.

UN Water. (2013). What is water security? Infographic. UN-Water (blog). Retrieved from http://www.unwater.org/publications/water-security-infographic/.

UN Water. (2019). World water development report 2019. Retrieved from https://www.unwater.org/publications/world-water-development-report-2019/

Buzan, B.G., & Waever, O. (2003). Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security (Vol. 91). Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

Buzan, B., Wæver, O., & de Wilde, J. (1998). Security: A new framework for analysis. Boulder, Colo: Lynne Rienner Pub.

Aggestam, K. (2015). Desecuritisation of water and the technocratic turn in peacebuilding. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 15 (3), 327–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-015-9281-x.

Buzan, B., & Wæver, O. (2003). Regions and powers: The structure of international security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511491252.

Cook, Ch.,  & Bakker, K. (2012). Water security: Debating an emerging paradigm. Global Environmental Change, 22 (1), 94–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.10.011.

Keller, R. (2011). The sociology of knowledge approach to discourse (SKAD). Human Studies, 34,  43–65.

Keller, R. (2013). Doing discourse research: An introduction for social scientists. London: Sage.

Jäger, S. (2004). Kritische Diskursanalyse [Critical discourse analysis]. Edition Diss.

Wæver, O. (1995). Securitization and desecuritization. In R.D. Lipschutz (Ed.), On security, New directions in world politics (pp.46–86). New York: Columbia University Press.

Fischhendler, I., & Nathan, D. (2015). The social construction of water security discourses: Preliminary evidence and policy implications from the Middle East. https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.2995.2965.

Fröhlich,C (2020) “Desecuritisation of Water as a Key for Water Diplomacy” Ensuring Water Security in the Middle East Policy Implications.Editors: Liel Maghen, Shira Kronich EUROMESCO JOINT POLICY STUDY . Published by the European Institute of the Mediterranean April 2020

 Diriöz A. (2020) “Watering Down Tensions: The Role of Securitisation in Water Cooperation” Ensuring Water Security in the Middle East Policy Implications.Editors: Liel Maghen, Shira Kronich EUROMESCO JOINT POLICY STUDY . Published by the European Institute of the Mediterranean April 2020

 Sikri, R. (2010). Resource competition, nationalism and their security implications. South Asian Survey, 17(1), 7-17.

 Kibaroğlu, A., Çakmak, B., & Doğan, A. (2007). Global Water Policies and River Basin Management: Reflections on Water Resources Management in Turkey. In Proceedings of the International Congress River Basin Management, Antalya, Turkey, pp. 48-58. Ankara: Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources General Directorate of State Hydraulic Works.

 Cook, C., & Bakker, K. (2012). Water security: Debating an emerging paradigm. Global Environmental Change, 22(1), 94-102.

 Crawley, R. (translator). (2009). The History of the Peloponnesian War. Vol I. part VII. Original text by Thucydides (431 BC). Translated by Richard Crawley.. Project Gutenberg E-Book.

 Fischhendler, I. (2015). The securitization of water discourse: Theoretical foundations, research gaps and objectives of the special issue. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 15(3), 245-255.

 Fischhendler, I., & Nathan, D. (2016). The social construction of water security discourses: Preliminary evidence and policy implications from the Middle East. In C. Pahl-Wostl, A. Bhaduri & J. Gupta (Eds.) Handbook on Water Security, 76-90. Edward Elgar.

 Waever, O. (1995). Securitization and desecuritization. In R. D. Lipschutz (Ed.), On Security, 46-87. New York: Colombia University Press.

  Sula E.İ.(2021) “Güvenlikleştirme Kuramında ‘Söz Edim’ ve ‘Pratikler’: Türkçe Güvenlikleştirme Yazınında ‘Yöntem’ Arayışı” Güvenlik Stratejileri Cilt: 17 Sayı: 37