temporary U.S. national security policy, not surpris-
ingly, the attacks of September 11, 2001 refocused the
national security strategy on the asymmetric threats
posed by non-state actors (White House 2006). It has
been argued a balanced approach be used to address
such threats in an effort to improve the human condi-
tion and address the root causes which support and
favor terrorism as a tactic of choice (Richmond and
Franks 2005). Such an approach supports broadening
the concept of security to better address the military,
political, economic, societal and environmental inse-
curities which lie at the root of conflict.
Non-Traditional Security Frameworks
The term “environmental security” has been in-
tensively studied and hotly debated for nearly two
decades. It is first mentioned in the 1991 National
Security Strategy and subsequent strategies where en-
vironmental degradation and natural resource deple-
tion were viewed as having long-term security impli-
cations (White House 1991 and 1995). Environmental
security has been defined as:
the freedom from natural and anthropogenic environ-
mental threats and vulnerabilities that have the poten-
tial to adversely impact on national security interests
and, if left unchecked, could contribute to increasing
intrastate or broader regional instability and to the
outbreak of conflict (Hearne 2008, 223).^2Another non-traditional security concept which
has gained significant prominence since the mid-1990s
is “human security.” Human Security suggests the fo-
- Scarce resources (water and fertile land) contributed to
the conflict in Darfur; timber revenues have fueled conflict in Li-
beria; and severe deforestation contributed to flooding and severe
soil erosion in Haiti (UNEP 2009).