CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 14Social Sciences and HumanitiesSustainability and Climate Change GovernanceGlobal Security and Public Health

Conflicting securities: contributions to a critical research agenda on climate security

Open access
Lamain, Corinne·2022·Globalizations
DOI 10.1080/14747731.2022.2057093
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Climate change is increasingly presented as a security issue; this ‘climate security’ discourse arguably imparts an even greater sense of urgency to the already alarming climate crisis. This article argues that the grounding for this narrative is thin, while its adoption in powerful avenues and thus its implications are substantial. Budgets for climate mitigation and adaptation measures, which often seek to control natural resources by assigning a monetary value to them, rise steadily. Ironically, climate policies themselves frequently contribute to socio-environmental conflicts, further marginalizing the users of land, water and forests. It is therefore important to disentangle whether and how climate security discourses further shape climate investments, to identify the key actors involved and to examine the part they play in socio-environmental conflicts. The article argues that a critical research agenda, based on but going beyond political ecology, is needed for more socially and environmentally just climate interventions.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/14747731.2022.2057093

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Water stress showed a significant inverse link to state capacity, especially in fiscal and service-delivery areas.

    “The statistical results demonstrated that climate-induced water stress was significantly and negatively associated with state capacity, particularly within fiscal and service delivery domains (Lamain, 2022).”

    From Climate Security, Water Governance, and Resilience How Climate-Induced Water Stress and Migration Challenge State Capacity (2026) · cites this paper as Lamain, 2022

    The Introduction discusses climate-security framing and resource scarcity, but does not report a statistical relationship between water stress and state capacity. Searches for the claimed negative association, fiscal and service-delivery domains, and state capacity found no passage addressing that result in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 55

  1. Adger, W. N. (2010). Climate change, human well-being and insecurity. New Political Economy, 15(2), 275–292. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563460903290912 · DOI
  2. Adger, W. N., Pulhin, J. M., Barnett, J., Dabelko, G. D., Hovelsrud, G. K., Levy, M., Oswald Spring, Ú, & Vogel, C. H. (2014). Human security. In: Climate change 2014: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part A: Global and sectoral aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press. United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA (pp. 755–791).
  3. Ahlers, R., Budds, J., Joshi, D., Merme, V., & Zwarteveen, M. (2015). Framing hydropower as green energy: Assessing drivers, risks and tensions in the Eastern Himalayas. Earth System Dynamics, 6(1), 195–204. https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-6-195-2015 · DOI
  4. Angelsen, A., Martius, C., De Sy, V., Duchelle, A. E., Larson, A. M., & Pham, T. T. (eds.). (2018). Transforming REDD+: Lessons and new directions. CIFOR.
  5. Arsel, M., & Büscher, B. (2012). NatureTM Inc.: Changes and continuities in neoliberal conservation and market-based environmental policy. Development and Change, 43(1), 53–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.2012.01752.x · DOI
  6. Barnett, J., & Adger, W. (2007). Climate change, human security and violent conflict. Political Geography, 26(–), 639–655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2007.03.003 · DOI
  7. Bäckstrand, K., & Lövbrand, E. (2006). Planting trees to mitigate climate change: Contested discourses of ecological modernization, green governmentality and civic environmentalism. Global Environmental Politics, 6(1), 50–75. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep.2006.6.1.50 · DOI
  8. Bernstein, H. (2017). Political economy of agrarian change: Some key concepts and questions. RUDN Journal of Sociology, 17(1), 7–18. https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2272-2017-17-1-7-18 · DOI
  9. Boas, I. (2015). Climate migration and security: Securitisation as a strategy in climate change politics. Routledge.
  10. Boin, A., ‘t Hart, P., & McConnell, A. (2009). Crisis exploitation: Political and policy impacts of framing contests. Journal of European Public Policy, 16(1), 81–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760802453221 · DOI
  11. Borras, S. M., Hall, R., Scoones, I., White, B., & Wolford, W. (2011). Towards a better understanding of global land grabbing: An editorial introduction. Journal of Peasant Studies, 38(2), 209–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2011.559005 · DOI
  12. Büscher, B., & Fletcher, R. (2018). Under pressure: Conceptualising political ecologies of “green wars”. Conservation and Society, 16(2), 105–113. https://doi.org/10.4103/cs.cs_18_1 · DOI
  13. Corbera, E., Hunsberger, C., & Vaddhanaphuti, C. (2017). Climate change policies, land grabbing and conflict: Perspectives from Southeast Asia. Canadian Journal of Development Studies / Revue Canadienne D'études du Développement, 38(3), 297–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/02255189.2017.1343413 · DOI
  14. Corbera, E., & Schroeder, H. (2017). Editorial to the special issue “REDD+ Crossroads Post Paris: Politics, Lessons and interplays”. Forests, 8(12), 508. https://doi.org/10.3390/f8120508 · DOI
  15. Dabelko, G. D., Herzer, L., Null, S., Parker, M., & Sticklor, R. (2013). Backdraft: The conflict potential of climate change adaptation and mitigation. In Environmental change & security program report. (Vol. 14, 2) Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
  16. Dryzek, J. S. (2005). The politics of the earth: Environmental discourses (2nd ed). Oxford University Press. First published 1997.
  17. Duffy, R. (2014). Waging a war to save biodiversity: The rise of militarized conservation. International Affairs, 90(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12142 · DOI
  18. Duffy, R., Massé, F., Smidt, E., Marijnen, E., Büscher, B., Verweijen, J., Ramutsindela, M., Simlai, T., Joanny, L., & Lunstrum, E. (2019). Why we must question the militarisation of conservation. Biological Conservation, 232, 66–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.01.013 · DOI
  19. Dunlap, A., & Fairhead, J. (2014). The militarisation and marketisation of nature: An alternative lens to ‘climate-conflict’. Geopolitics, 19(4), 937–961. https://doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2014.964864 · DOI
  20. Earle, A., Cascao, E., Hansson, S., Jägerskog, A., Swain, A., & Öjendal, J. (2015). Transboundary water management and the climate change debate. Routledge.
  21. Escobar, A. (1995). Encountering development: The making and unmaking of the Third world. Princeton University Press.
  22. Fairhead, J., Leach, M., & Scoones, I. (2012). Green grabbing: A new appropriation of nature? Journal of Peasant Studies, 39(2), 237–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2012.671770 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Fleming, A., Vanclay, F., Hiller, C., & Wilson, S. (2014). Challenging dominant discourses of climate change. Climatic Change, 127(3-4), 407–418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1268-z · DOI
  24. Fletcher, R., Dressler, W., Büscher, B., & Anderson, Z. R. (2016). Questioning REDD+ and the future of market-based conservation. Conservation Biology, 30(3), 673–675. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12680 · DOI
  25. Floyd, R. (2015). Global climate security governance: A case of institutional and ideational fragmentation. Conflict, Security & Development, 15(2), 119–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/14678802.2015.1034452 · DOI
  26. Foster, J. B. (1999). Marx’s theory of metabolic rift: Classical foundations for environmental sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 105(2), 366–405. https://doi.org/10.1086/210315 · DOI
  27. Franco, J. C., & Borras, S. M. (2019). Grey areas in green grabbing: Subtle and indirect interconnections between climate change politics and land grabs and their implications for research. Land Use Policy, 84(May), 192–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.03.013 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Gemenne, F., Barnett, J., Adger, W. N., & Dabelko, G. D. (2014). Climate and security: Evidence, emerging risks, and a new agenda. Climatic Change, 123(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1074-7 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Gills, B., & Morgan, J. (2021). Economics and climate emergency. Globalizations, 18(7), 1071–1086. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2020.1841527 · DOI
  30. Gleditsch, N. P., & Nordås, R. (2014). Conflicting messages? The IPCC on conflict and human security. Political Geography, 43, 82–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2014.08.007 · DOI
  31. Hartmann, B. (2010). Rethinking climate refugees and climate conflict: Rhetoric, reality and the politics of policy discourse. Journal of International Development, 22(2), 233–246. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.1676 · DOI
  32. Haya, B. & Parekh, P. (2011). Hydropower in the CDM: Examining Additionality and Criteria for Sustainability. SSRN Electronic Journal. 10.2139/ssrn.2120862. · DOI
  33. Hulme, M. (2009). Why we disagree about climate change: Understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity. Cambridge University Press.
  34. Hunsberger, C., Corbera, E., Borras, S. M., Franco, J. C., Woods, K., Work, C., de la Rosa, R., Eang, V., Herre, R., Kham, S. S., Park, C., Sokheng, S., Spoor, M., Thein, S., Aung, K. T., Thuon, R., & Vaddhanaphuti, C. (2017). Climate change mitigation, land grabbing and conflict: Towards a landscape-based and collaborative action research agenda. Canadian Journal of Development Studies / Revue Canadienne D'études du Développement, 38(3), 305–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/02255189.2016.1250617 · DOI · Paper page
  35. IPCC. (2021). Climate change 2021: The physical science basis. In V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S. L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M. I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J. B. R. Matthews, T. K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, & B. Zhou (Eds.), Contribution of working group I to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press.
  36. Karlsson, L., Naess, O., Nightingale, A., & Thompson, J. (2018). Triple wins’ or ‘triple faults’? Analysing the equity implications of policy discourses on climate-smart agriculture (CSA). The Journal of Peasant Studies, 45(1), 150–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2017.1351433 · DOI
  37. Keeley, J., & Scoones, I. (2003). Understanding environmental policy processes. Routledge.
  38. Khan, M., Robinson, S., Weikmans, R., Ciplet, D., & Timmons Roberts, J. (2020). Twenty-five years of adaptation finance through a climate justice lens. Climatic Change, 161(2), 251–269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02563-x · DOI · Paper page
  39. LeBillon, P., & Duffy, R. (2018). Conflict ecologies: Connecting political ecology and peace & conflict studies. Journal of Political Ecology, 25(1), 239–260. https://doi.org/10.2458/v25i1.22704 · DOI
  40. Lewis, K., & Lenton, T. (2015). Knowledge problems in climate change and security research. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 6(4), 383–399. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.346. · DOI
  41. Martinez-Alier, J., Temper, L., Del Bene, D., & Scheidel, A. (2016). Is there a global environmental justice movement? The Journal of Peasant Studies, 43(3), 731–755. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2016.1141198 · DOI
  42. McDonald, M. (2013). Discourses of climate security. Political Geography, 33(1), 42–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2013.01.002 · DOI
  43. McDonald, M. (2021). Ecological security: Climate change and the construction of security. Cambridge University Press.
  44. Mosse, D. (2005). Cultivating development. An ethnography of aid policy and practice. Pluto Press.
  45. O’Connor, J. (1998). Natural causes: Essays in ecological Marxism. Guilford Press.
  46. Peluso, N., & Vandergeest, P. (2011). Political ecologies of war and forests: Counterinsurgencies and the making of national natures. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 101(3), 587–608. https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2011.560064 · DOI
  47. Peluso, N., & Watts, M. (2001). Violent environments. Cornell University Press.
  48. Satyal, P., Corbera, E., Dawson, N., Dhungana, H., & Maskey, G. (2019). Representation and participation in formulating Nepal’s REDD+ approach. Climate Policy, 19(sup1), S8–S22. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2018.1473752 · DOI
  49. Scheidel, A., Temper, L., Demaria, F., & Martínez-Alier, J. (2017). Ecological distribution conflicts as forces for sustainability: An overview and conceptual framework. Sustainability Science, 13(3), 585–598. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0519-0 · DOI
  50. Scoones, I., Smalley, R., Hall, R., & Tsikata, D. (2018). Narratives of scarcity: Framing the global land rush. Geoforum; Journal of Physical, Human, and Regional Geosciences, 101, 231–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.06.006 · DOI
  51. Scott, S. V. (2012). The securitization of climate change in world politics: How close have we come and would full securitization enhance the efficacy of global climate change policy? Review of European Community & International Environmental Law, 21(3), 220–230. https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12008 · DOI
  52. Selby, J., & Hoffmann, C. (2014). Rethinking climate change, conflict and security. Geopolitics, 19(4), 747–756. https://doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2014.964866 · DOI
  53. Siciliano, G., Urban, F., Tan-Mullins, M., & Mohan, G. (2018). Large dams, energy justice and the divergence between international, national and local developmental needs and priorities in the global south. Energy Research & Social Science, 41, 199–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.03.029 · DOI
  54. Temper, L., Del Bene, D., & Martinez-Alier, J. (2015). Mapping the frontiers and front lines of global environmental justice: The EJAtlas. Journal of Political Ecology, 22(1), 255–278. https://doi.org/10.2458/v22i1.21108 · DOI
  55. Warner, J., & Boas, I. (2017). Securitisation of climate change: The risk of exaggeration. Ambiente & Sociedade, 20(3), 203–224. https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-4422asocex0003v2022017 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lamain, C.
Affiliations
International Institute of Social Studies (NL)
Corresponding author
Lamain, Corinne
ORCID
Lamain, Corinne
Venue
Globalizations
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2022-04-12
Volume
19
Issue
8
Pages
1257-1272
ISSN
  • 1474-7731 (ISSN-L)
  • 1474-774X
DOI
10.1080/14747731.2022.2057093
OpenAlex
W4223504947
Cited by
14
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4
FWCI
7.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Globalizations (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Social Sciences and Humanities
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Sustainability and Climate Change Governance
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Global Security and Public Health
Keywords
climate security, socio-environmental conflicts, climate investment, political ecology, climate justice

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review