The OSCE and the Economic and Environmental Forums

4. The environment and conflict in the Western Balkans

4.3 The OSCE and the Economic and Environmental Forums

4.3 The OSCE and the Economic and Environmental Forums

In the early 2000s, the discussion on environmental conflict continued both in the Western Balkan region and beyond. In particular, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) started to take a more active interest in the issue. This tendency was at least partly inspired by the post-conflict work in the Western Balkans. For the region, the work of the OSCE had such a prominent role that the attention it gave to any topic was bound to have implications.

The OSCE, which dates back to the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe starting in 1974 and the Helsinki Final Act signed in 1975, originally aimed at facilitating cooperation between the Eastern and Western European countries, but saw its responsibilities considerably shift and widen after the end of the Cold War. Its new role focused on managing the political transition within Europe and addressing new security issues that were emerging in association to the changing situation. Security and stability remain its main fields of action, incorporating early warning, conflict prevention, crisis management and post-conflict rehabilitation.²⁹

As a major security actor in the region, the OSCE was also involved in the Western Balkans during and after the conflicts. While its role was not quite comparable to that of the EU, which offered both the accession perspective and considerable funding, the OSCE incorporated more actors – such as the United States and Russia – and directed its focus on security and cooperation issues.³⁰ The OSCE was also used as a model for the Stability Pact and was an active partner within its structure.³¹ In its Regional Strategy for South Eastern Europe, passed March 16th 2000, the OSCE aimed to devise a comprehensive policy to guide its actions in the region as a whole, as opposed to addressing individual countries separately, as well as defining its role with regard to the Stability Pact.³² Apart from that, there was nothing particularly new or region-specific about the Strategy. The main objectives were to assist countries in

29 E.g. OSCE: Annual Report 2009. OSCE, Vienna 2010, 116. Available at

http://www.osce.org/secretariat/67759?download=true (Last visited 29.1.2015).

30 Friis, L. & Murphy, A.: Turbo-charged negotiations': the EU and the Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe. Journal of European Public Policy 7(5), 2003, 770.

31 Bechev 2006, 34.

32 Buchsbaum, T.M.: The OSCE and the Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe: A mother-daughter, brother-sister or partner relationship? Helsinki Monitor 11(4) 2000, 69.

128

implementing their OSCE commitments and obligations and to support efforts like arms control and confidence building;³³ in other words, performing tasks that were at the core of OSCE competences.

The OSCE takes a comprehensive approach to security, with three Dimensions: Politico-Military, Economic and Environmental, and Human.³⁴ Environmental issues were already mentioned in the Helsinki Final Act from 1975,³⁵ but their actual linkages to security and conflict were more prominently recognised only in the early 1990s.³⁶ Since then, the role of the Economic and Environmental Dimension (EED) has been increasing in prominence, although it seems to be forever waiting to fully enter the mainstream.³⁷ This positioning is linked to the trends of the global environmental security discourse, which will be reflected upon in more detail in Section 6.

Among its interest in environmental issues in the 1990s, the OSCE tackled the security implications of pollution, nuclear safety, water management and trans-boundary concerns. It emphasised a regional approach and inter-agency cooperation as important measures towards achieving solutions. Along with encouraging public participation on environmental issues, these were considered to have a dual positive impact on security by simultaneously improving environmental quality as well as all kinds of cooperation.³⁸ These principles demonstrate a degree of recognition of the cross-dimensional security implications of the environment.

Within the OSCE, the main forum for the environmental security debate – in fact for a great deal of its environmental cooperation overall – is the annual Economic Forum; later renamed Economic and Environmental Forum (E & E Forum). It provides a stage for debate more than decision-making, but is influential in setting the agenda in this sector and contributes to the preparation of new policies. From the late 1990s onwards, environmental security started to enter the discussions held at the Forum.

33 Buchsbaum 2000, 70-71.

34 E.g. OSCE: What is the OSCE? Brochure. OSCE, 2013. Available at

http://www.osce.org/secretariat/35775?download=true (Last visited 2.2.2015)

35 CSCE: Coference on Security and Co-operation in Europe Final Act. Helsinki, 1975, 27-30. Available at http://www.osce.org/mc/39501?download=true (Last visited 2.2.2015)

36 Zaagman, R. : OSCE Conflict Prevention and the Economic and Environmental Dimension. Helsinki Monitor 10(4), 1999, 40-43.

37 See e.g. Zaagman 1999, 40-41 describing the situation and Bernard Snoy and Marc Baltes commenting in the OSCE Yearbook 2007; Snoy, B. & Baltes, M.: Environmental Security: A Key Challenge for the OSCE. In IFSH: OSCE Yearbook 2007. IFSH, 2007, 325-326. Available at http://ifsh.de/file-CORE/documents/yearbook/english/07/2007-enpdfGesamt.pdf (Last visited 2.2.2015)

38 OSCE: Report on the CSCE/OSCE and the Environment 1975-2000. Hamburg, 1 June 2001, 9-10. Available at http://www.osce.org/eea/42320?download=true (Last visited 6.4.2016).

129

The first time that the Forum explicitly mentioned ‘the environmental aspects of security’ was in 1998 at the 6^th Forum, with reference to the way in which ‘economic and environmental problems could increase the probability of a potential conflict becoming a real one’.³⁹ The Forum observed that the OSCE ‘should be ready to respond rapidly and creatively to such risks’, suggesting that OSCE field activities should be linked more closely to these issues.⁴⁰ This was only a brief remark of the 6^th Forum, which primarily focused on ‘Security aspects of energy developments in the OSCE area’. However, it shows that the environmental security linkage was on the agenda of the OSCE already prior to the Kosovo conflict.

The following year proved even more interesting for the environmental security discourse, when the Forum focused directly on ‘Security aspects in the field of the environment’. It approached the issue through three main themes, each with its own justification for the security linkage. The themes were divided into separate workshops and tackled individually, which allowed a detailed perspective into the variety of opportunities for environmental security in practical terms. However, this approach omitted the need to give an overall definition or rationale for the concept itself.

The first theme of the security dimensions of energy and the environment was a continuation from the topic of the 6^th Forum. The rationale was that energy had come to be seen as a crucial geopolitical factor whose secure supply was ‘a prerequisite for long-term stability and security ’⁴¹, but it also had important environmental consequences. The second theme was water management, which was considered ‘of utmost importance to security in the OSCE area’⁴², suggesting that the organisation should have a role in encouraging cooperation on the issue. Finally, public participation was included, due to its linkage to processes like the Aarhus Convention, and because its role in environmental awareness and justice was considered ‘important for security’⁴³.

The outcome of the discussions was that the OSCE could and should have a role in all three fields of environmental security, mainly due to its comprehensive approach and status as an influential regional actor. The conference report emphasised that the organisation could use its existing networks and

39 OSCE: Sixth Meeting of the Economic Forum. Prague 1-5-June 1998. Summary. OSCE Senior Council, EF.GAL/4/98 (OSCE Summary of the Sixth Meeting of the Economic Forum), 9. Available at http://www.osce.org/eea/42141?download=true (Last visited 26.1.2015)

40 OSCE Summary of the Sixth Meeting of the Economic Forum, 9.

41 OSCE: Seventh Meeting of the Economic Forum. Prague 25-28 May 1999. Summary. OSCE Senior Council EF.GAL/3/99, 7. (OSCE Summary of the Seventh Meeting of the Economic Forum) Available at http://www.osce.org/eea/42132?download=true (Last visited 25.1.2015).

42 OSCE Summary of the Seventh Meeting of the Economic Forum, 7.

43 OSCE Summary of the Seventh Meeting of the Economic Forum, 8.

130

institutions to push matters forward.⁴⁴ The activities that were envisioned included carrying out case studies and other kinds of research, launching special missions to deal with environmental threats and organising seminars to promote awareness.⁴⁵ However, it was also observed that its role should mainly be limited to ‘facilitation/political co-ordination, rather than scientific/technical’ issues as these were not its main area of expertise.⁴⁶ Therefore, cooperation with other organisations and institutions, particularly ones that had expertise on environmental work, was crucial.⁴⁷

A particularly interesting part of the summary of the Forum is the Report of the Informal Working Group on environmental security. It focused on ‘briefly defining the historical and present debate on the definitions of and links between environment and security’, considering the ‘approaches of various national governments towards environment and security’ and ‘discussing the political intention of the environmental security debate’.⁴⁸ The organisation of the Working Group as such shows that environmental security was starting to be seen as a significant topic. But the Working Group went beyond general discussion in that it attempted to theoretically conceptualise environmental security and acknowledge its political implications. The actors within the OSCE framework clearly were not oblivious to the potentially politicised nature of environmental security and intended to take this into account in their own work. Instead of taking the concept for granted, the OSCE saw the need to give it deeper consideration.

According to the Working Group, the OSCE should ‘operationalise’ the environmental security agenda, for example by ‘identifying national and trans-boundary environmental issues which might have a security impact’, ‘enhancing regional co-operation on such environmental issues’ and ‘providing political and technical support to other international organisations’.⁴⁹ In addition, the Working Group argued that ‘the OSCE has an important role to play in facilitating and co-ordinating environmental and economic activities as a means of early warning, conflict prevention and post-conflict rehabilitation in the region’⁵⁰. It suggested arranging an additional workshop specifically on ‘Policy Approaches to Environment and Security in the OSCE Region’ in order to ‘further clarify the OSCE’s role and future agenda in responding to the environmental aspects of security, to clarify the linkages between environment and security, to analyse the root causes of environmental conflicts within OSCE

44 OSCE Summary of the Seventh Meeting of the Economic Forum, 7-8.

45 OSCE Summary of the Seventh Meeting of the Economic Forum, 11-13, 20.

46 OSCE Summary of the Seventh Meeting of the Economic Forum, 16.

47 E.g. OSCE Summary of the Seventh Meeting of the Economic Forum, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 22.

48 OSCE Summary of the Seventh Meeting of the Economic Forum, 21.

49 OSCE Summary of the Seventh Meeting of the Economic Forum, 21.

50 OSCE Summary of the Seventh Meeting of the Economic Forum, 21.

131

participating States and to identify potential ‘hot spots’ in the OSCE region.’⁵¹ In other words, there was a clear intention to continue to develop the field and to truly turn environmental security into a policy discussion. While the OSCE had not previously in its history been an environmental securitisation actor, it was now expressing a clear interest to become one.

The OSCE took the role of a securitising agent in a far more deliberate and active way than anyone previously in the Western Balkan context. Some more explanation about its role is offered in the summary of the seminar “Strengthening the OSCE’s Role in the Realm of Environment and Security”, organised in Berlin on July 3rd-4th 2001, further described as a follow-up to the 7^th and 8^th Economic Forums.⁵² Such a conference had been proposed in both of the Forums, with the aim of summing up the discussion on environmental security. The seminar had a more theoretical approach than the Forums and featured contributions from the academic community. This further shows that the OSCE aimed to find a working conceptualisation for environmental security as a solution to the ambiguity that had been characteristic of the discourse.

The background paper to the seminar again emphasised that the OSCE was not an environmental organisation and had ‘neither the intention nor the means’ to work on environmental issues such as global warming.⁵³ However, the environment was seen as a ‘necessary complement’⁵⁴ to the dimensions of security that the organisation was already dealing with. The area of competence of the organisation had not changed, but the security situation had significantly altered after the collapse of the Soviet Union and new threats, among them environmental ones, had emerged.⁵⁵ In other words, the official motivation for the OSCE to engage in the field of environmental security was that, in its view, environmental matters had come to occupy an elemental role as a potential threat factor. As a security organisation, the OSCE had a responsibility to address the issue.

In addition, due to its experience and status as a major security actor in the region, the OSCE was considered to be in an ideal position to develop the environmental security dialogue. The value of the OSCE’s contribution, in its own view, was its ability to engage the main regional actors and other international organisations in cooperation. However, as it is not an environmental organisation, it was argued that the OSCE should mainly have a facilitating role and act as a ‘catalyst’ highlighting

51 OSCE Summary of the Seventh Meeting of the Economic Forum, 21.

52 OSCE: Follow-up Seminar to the 7th and 8th Economic Forum “Strengthening the OSCE’s Role in the Realm of Environment and Security”, 3 - 4 July 2001 Berlin. Final Report. (OSCE Final Report of the Follow-up Seminar to the 7th and 8th Economic Forum), 1. Available at http://www.osce.org/eea/42179?download=true (Last visited 21.2.2015)

53 OSCE Final Report of the Follow-up Seminar to the 7th and 8th Economic Forum, 5.

54 OSCE Final Report of the Follow-up Seminar to the 7th and 8th Economic Forum, 5.

55 OSCE Final Report of the Follow-up Seminar to the 7th and 8th Economic Forum, 60.

132

environmental security themes. In particular, the OSCE should ‘avoid duplicating work of existing organisations’⁵⁶ such as UNEP and the UN Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE).

The need for a clear understanding about environmental security issues was stressed, with the idea that the OSCE could work as ‘a consciousness-raiser by stressing the necessity of a comprehensive and inter-disciplinary security approach’.⁵⁷ In other words, the OSCE engaged in raising environmental matters on the political agenda. This was already visible during the Economic Forums, where it was observed that ‘the OSCE could play a key role in bringing environmental concerns from the grassroots level to the attention of political and security decision-makers’⁵⁸ In addition, it was considered important to ‘go beyond discussing the issue [of environmental security]’⁵⁹ and instead to find practical solutions through new kinds of projects. For the OSCE, this meant having to ‘narrow the field of activities again and to come to more concrete activities’⁶⁰

The environmental-conflict discourse could also be beneficial for the OSCE. It provided an opportunity to strengthen its own activity in the economic and environmental dimension, which had previously remained relatively vague compared to its other fields of engagement.⁶¹ Already in the 7^th Forum, it was suggested that the OSCE should be brought “into the environmental mainstream”’⁶² and that it should

‘make economic and environmental concerns a more integral part’⁶³ of its activities. It therefore stood to benefit from the cooperation with organisations that had more expertise in the environmental sector.

The OSCE had an obvious motivation to strengthen its environmental activities. Since the end of the Cold War, its relevance in the emerging security environment had been repeatedly questioned by both scholars and policymakers. It no longer enjoyed a unique position as the only organisation engaging both the ‘East’ and the ‘West’, and a great deal of its core activities had been taken over by more powerful organisations like the EU and NATO. It was widely regarded as being in need of ‘revitalisation’, although some commentators also offered further stagnation and scaling back as a solution.⁶⁴ The OSCE was thus

56 OSCE Final Report of the Follow-up Seminar to the 7th and 8th Economic Forum, 55.

57 OSCE Final Report of the Follow-up Seminar to the 7th and 8th Economic Forum, 6.

58 E.g. OSCE Report of the Preparatory Seminar for the Eights Economic Forum, 5.

59 OSCE Final Report of the Follow-up Seminar to the 7th and 8th Economic Forum, 55 (italics in the original).

60 OSCE Final Report of the Follow-up Seminar to the 7th and 8th Economic Forum, 59.

61 See e.g. Oberschmidt, R., & Zellner, W. OSCE at the Crossroads. Working Paper 2, Centre for OSCE Research 2001 18-19.

62 OSCE Summary of the Seventh Meeting of the Economic Forum, 22.

63 Price, T.L. & Mast, S.N.: Security Aspects in the Field of the Environment: A review of the 7th Annual OSCE Economic Forum. Helsinki Monitor 10(4) 1999, 38.

64 Dunay, P.: The OSCE in crisis. Chaillot Paper 88, Institute for Security Studies, European Union, 2006, 7-9.

133

left seeking new fields of influence to legitimise its existence. This at least partly explains the vigour with which the organisation set off to claim environmental security as a new field of interest.

However, as a securitising agent, the OSCE does not / cannot act independently, but rather functions in the same way international organisations do, in that it is dependent upon the views of its member states.

Germany emerged as a particularly active player in developing the environmental security discourse, with Switzerland as a partner. Germany had become engaged in the topic already in the 1990s and had worked on it in cooperation with NATO. The OSCE, and particularly the area of former Yugoslavia, provided a logical continuation for the activities.⁶⁵ Among other things, Germany was the initiator for the Berlin seminar. The fact that such key member states were interested in the topic is likely to have facilitated a certain momentum within the organisation.

Not all member states were equally enthusiastic. In 2002, Turkmenistan, Russia and Turkey all issued interpretative statements on one of the topics of the E&E Forum, on ‘Co-operation for the sustainable use and the protection of the quality of water in the context of the OSCE’. Russia argued it would have preferred a previously considered topic of socio-economic consequences of disarmament,⁶⁶ while Turkmenistan objected to the discussion of trans-boundary water use because it considered these

‘extremely sensitive and significant for the States of our region’.⁶⁷ Turkey opposed the water theme on the grounds that ‘OSCE does not have the necessary expertise to deal with such issues.’⁶⁸. The statements show that environmental issues were by no means neutral or non-politicised, and the more important they became, the more likely they were to cause diplomatic differences.

Meanwhile, despite representing a region of particular concern for the environmental security work of the OSCE, the Western Balkan countries did not take part as active agents in the discourse. The national level was of course represented as participating states, but their views did not occupy a particularly important role in the discussions. The views of the immediate local level, such as affected communities and NGOs, were hardly mentioned at all. Instead, the role of the Office of the Co-ordinator of OSCE Economic and Environmental Activities was highlighted. When discussing environmental security

In document International Organisations and the Securitisation of the Environment in Post-Conflict Western Balkans (sivua 135-0)