Environmental security and the whole-of-government approach in The Netherlands

(1)

Environmental security and the

whole-of-government approach in

(2)

Crisis and Security Management Studies

Master Thesis

Supervisor: Prof. Dr. J.A. Koops

Second corrector: Prof. Dr. A.L. Dimitrova

Ramona Pakvis

S1506749

(3)

1. Introduction

In our modern day society the concept of security is used and perhaps also overused in a versatile array of settings and fields. The emergence of new threats such as, terrorism, cyber-crime and environmental issues has suggested that reactive measures and an antagonistic understanding of what security entails are not always the best way to deal with the issues at stake (Gaan, 2015). Especially environmental security has been the centre stage for controversial debates since their potential devastating effects are way beyond the hard shell of the state’s sovereignty and continues to divide opinions.

The Netherlands, as part of the European Union, has been involved in a great deal of agreements regarding environmental issues over time. Initially the protocols focused mainly on specific topics such as the Vienna Convention for the protection of the ozone layer in 1985 and the Kyoto Protocol on climate change in 1998 (United Nations, 1985: United Nations, 1998). Even though these earlier agreements did stipulate a certain shift in their security agenda in order to prioritise environmental issues, the need for an all-embracing approach became even more apparent in the more recent agreements. The 7th Environment Action Programme, an agreement by the European Union based on the different protocols and conventions previously embraced by the union, for example dictates: “The

transformation into an inclusive green economy requires the integration of environment issues into other policies, such as [..] security” (European Union, 2013). Moreover, the Paris

Agreement focuses among other things on the “The importance of the engagements of all

levels of government and various actors [..] in addressing climate change” referring to

“integrated, holistic and balanced non-market approaches” to do so (United Nations, 2015,

p.8).

Thus more and more environmental issues and protocols are calling for this comprehensive approach in which the governmental bodies are not limited to their own pillorised ministerial focus but rather working together as a union, as stipulated by the whole-of-government approach. In this approach one goes beyond the ministerial or institutional focus to create integrated policies (Humpage, 2005).

The main problem is how this wholesome incorporation of environmental issues goes about in the Dutch modern society and the political struggle it entails to realise this incorporation. Moreover also the fluid and everchanging nature of security makes it hard to fully grasp environmental securitisation and its consequences. In order to research this issue the main research question of this thesis will be: “To what extent is a whole-of-government approach

used by The Netherlands in regards to incorporating environmental issues into the security domain?”. The main question will be answered in two subchapters. Firstly, the extent of

(6)

employment of whole-of-government approaches in Dutch political advises will be researched. Followed by an analysis on the policy by means of evidence of actual

implementation and an in-depth analysis of the policies that present the whole-of-government approach. Secondly, the extent to which key Dutch political figures frame and discuss

environmental issues in official texts will be researched.

By doing so I want to academically bridge the gap between the theories regarding

securitisation and the whole-of-government approach, and the practice of The Netherlands. Analysing this can contribute to the greater debate of the wicked problem we face in the form of environmental issues and how we as modern day societies can manage them. As Rittel and Weber (1973) described, wicked problems have there no stopping rule, no enumerable set of solutions or well-described set of permissible operations, no stakeholders consensus on the problem, and no wicked problem is the same, as prevalent in the environmental as well.

Apart from this academic relevance it goes without saying there is great societal relevance in studying the environment due to its possible catastrophic results it can have on mankind. Previous work linking the theory to the practice has been very limited and is mainly focused on countries outside Europe. It is however perhaps more interesting to specifically look at European countries, since the European Union claims to be frontrunner in this field

(European Union, 2019). By learning from previous incorporation attempts one can improve future strategies to successfully implement the whole-of-government approach.

(7)

2. Theoretical framework

First a conceptualisation of the main concepts: environment, whole-of-government and security will be provided. Followed by a theoretical approach of environmental security.

2.1 Environment

Environmental problems are not necessarily new to society. The ancient Mesopotamians struggled with fertility issues due to constant cultivation, the Industrial Revolution had a tremendous effect on the quality of the physical environment. All these issues were

irreversible but overcome by adaptation and evolution of society. It is however argued that in the 1960s that people started to realise that nature was not a never-ending-resource and we would soon not be able to evolve and overcome the issues at stake (Glasbergen & Cövers, 1995). Contrarily it is also argued that although a great shift around the 1950-60s is

measured in the post-industrialised economy in terms of environmental friendly decisions it is not necessarily due to a greater awareness but simply a natural flow from the chaotic

temporary wartime economy to sustainability and profit (Simmons, 2012, p469). For

example, the western economy shifted from one in which financial, educational and medical services play a larger role than manufacturing. This automatically meant lesser emission without it necessarily being a ‘green choice’, thus contesting the eye-opening-stage in the 60s.

The concept of environmental issues have been highly contested throughout the literature. Some are quick to point at the industrial part of society (e.g., Angell & Klassen, 1999) while others take a more individual approach to effect of human life itself (Hughes, et al., 2003). As Glasbergen & Cövers (1995) put it nicely environmental issues are both physical and social problems. Even though science can provide a definition of the environmental problems contemporary society faces, there is also a certain subjective element of social ratification of the severity of this problem. For example the extinction of the dodo is valued differently throughout society or might not be even labelled as a problem by some.

From a human rights perspective, environmental issues are constantly linked to threats to human rights. The basic argument is that the preservation and sustainable use of

environmental resources are a necessary foundation for the enjoyment of other officially recognized human rights, including the right to life, liberty, and security (McElwee, 2012, p501). Subsequent to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 several other United Nations covenants, such as the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, have adopted environmental rights (McElwee, 2012, p502).

(8)

Moreover from an international relations perspective the interdependency argument is also prevalent. As argued by Pereira (2015, p192) the complexity and glocal nature of the issue might result into a new global order or disorder based on environmental challenges and our (in)ability to deal with them. Glasbergen & Cövers (1995) also discuss the concept of

interdependency, identifying three types: ecological, economic and political interdependency. The ecological factor is based on the acceptance of the current environmental issues as structured, cross-boundary and wicked. The economic factor is based on the intrinsic role of humans on environmental issues. Global socioeconomic society will be affected by the measures necessary to manage environmental issues. Lastly, the political factor is based on the political willingness to design change. The international nature of the problem requires a wholesome approach globally, encountering issues of sovereignty.

Since an analysis on the causes and effects of environmental issues is way beyond the scope of this research the specific definition of environmental issues will be based on the specific objectives identified in the 7th Environment Action Programm (European Union, 2013, p.8). Moreover the interdependency concepts as illustrated by several authors will also be used.

Hence the concept of environmental issues will be defined as threats regarding the natural

capital, resource-efficiency and environment-related pressures and risk to health and wellbeing of mankind, resulting in ecological, economic and political interdependency.

2.2 Whole-of-government

The term whole-of-government is a collective noun for a whole range of concepts and theories on cooperation and integration of different stakeholders, disciplines, governmental departments, etcetera. The concept is more or less synonymous with the joined-up

government approach, society approach, comprehensive approach, whole-of-systems approach or integrated approach. All these promote some sort of universal, polycentric cooperation or integration with different scopes and goals per specific concept. The whole-of-systems approach is the most odd one out compared to the relative high resemblance of the others. When approaching something from a whole-of-systems approach one encounters for the entire system behind the problem, seeing how things relate to each other in order to identify bottlenecks (Meadows, 2008). For example when looking at a deficiency of social housing, the whole-of-system approach would investigate construction sites, material costs, sustainability, etcetera (Seeman, Parnell, McFallan, & Tucker, 2008). The concept is predominately linked with engineering (E.g., Lovins, et al., 2010) but is also gaining popularity in other fields. It is however perhaps not appropriate to deal with this research since there are endless systems behind environmental problems which are far too

(9)

large to encounter for entirely. Perhaps this approach would be suited when looking at parts of environmental issues, such as water management and the system behind dykes and rivers. This is however not the scope of this research.

The comprehensive and/or integrated approach finds it origin in the military realm and is frequently employed by NATO (Lindley-French, Cornish, & Rathmell, 2010). The end of the cold war resulted in new military challenges that characterises security beyond traditional military efforts. It is not (only) about defending oneself from a hostile group anymore, there is also a need for rebuilding societal institutions and humanitarian efforts. Peacebuilding and peacekeeping entered the political agenda requiring a different approach in which the military strength could be combined with other, non-military actors such as local professionals

(Ohlsson, Wallenius, & Larsson, 2014). Due to its military nature and scope this concept is ill-suited to apply in this research.

The whole-of-society approach does not only focus on (inter)organisational cooperation but look all related stakeholders in society as a whole. When approaching obesity for example from a whole-of-society approach this means not only looking at governmental influence but also looking at restaurants, supermarkets and the role of the individual (Addy, Poirier, Blouin, Drager, & Dubé, 2014). Even though the large scope is very suited for environmental issues, the scope of this research is not identify stakeholders or hint towards which stakeholder should or should not be regarded. Therefore an approach with a more narrow scope is preferred.

The joined-up government approach and the whole-of-government approach are rather alike and has a governmental focus. The approach is used to have governmental agencies

working across portfolio boundaries to achieve a shared goal and an integrated government policy, programme or service response (Humpage, 2005) Two explanations for the

commencement of this approach are offered. Firstly, the timelines of crisis management have changed. Crisis nowadays require more extensive planning and aftercare, which traditional approaches fail to accommodate (Major & Mölling, 2009, p21). Secondly, there is also a tremendous increase of actors. Due to globalisation and social media interest groups we cannot simply look at regional of even national society anymore in order to adequately handle societal problems (Major & Mölling, 2009, p22). The concept of whole-of-governance or joined-up governance also sometimes enters the academic literature (E.g., Bevir, 2006; or Bekker, et al., 2016). The concepts seem to be very alike, both in approach and writing, and scholars also offer very little explanation on the differences. Nonetheless when bearing the difference in definition of government and governance in mind one can uncover some form of differentation. Whereas government refers to a system ruling the administration a country,

(10)

governance refers to the act of governing or ruling (Jessop, 1997). The government approaches are limited to governmental institutions cooperating whereas the governance approaches manifest a focus on governmental institutions but do sometime include other related institutions beyond the government. The difference might be very small but important nonetheless. The main focus of this research is on governmental institutions hence the preference for the whole-of-government approach.

Even though there is a certain amount of consensus on the concept, there is no universally agreed upon definition or framework to execute such an approach, the latter being a specifically challenging statement, since the main difficulty of the approach is the interpretation of leadership.

Peterson, et al. (2008) argue in favour of a bottom-up approach, arguing that traditional top-down approaches have currently lead to stakeholder-driven decisions, dominated by hidden agendas. This hinders the ability of the government to adequately manage crises. Moreover, from a military perspective the bottom-up approach is also promoted to secure local support in peacekeeping missions when new government are forged (Lindley-French, Cornish, & Rathmell, 2012).

However, the majority of scholars argue in favour of a horizontal leadership style. Bevir (2006) argues generic hierarchal institutions should cooperate, hierarchy is but a barrier hindering the fruitful mix of different institutions and actors. Moreover, OECD (2011) describes an approach in which strong vertical pillars and formal, legalistic arrangements should make room for personal, organic and horizontal networks. Lastly, Carayannopoulos (2016, p254) illustrates the need for horizontal approaches on the basis of the lessons learned of Hurricane Katrina and the Fukushima nuclear disaster, in which top-down approaches were used. The lack of coordination and interaction is one of the key elements which has been blamed for the failure of the response to both crises (Carayannopoulos, 2016). Hence he draws a conclusion in favour of horizontal leadership.

The approach has been debated and criticised throughout the years. The main argument against the approach is the lack of actual practise present in society. Rotman (2010) dubbed it a catchphrase of little consequences, pointing towards the lack of practical evidence to support the approach. Moreover, the need to operationalise the concept has also been a constant plea among critics (Lindley-French, Cornish, & Rathmell, 2010).

Nonetheless it is argued by several scholars to be the only approach suited to adequately deal with the environmental issues and its consequences contemporary society faces and therefore preferred in this research (See also: Peterson, McKinstry, & Dernbach, 2008: Morgenstern, 1991)

(11)

In order to apply focus and prevent confusion the concept will only be referred to as whole-of-government to prevent confusion. The concept is defined, based on Humpage’s (2005, p50) definition, as followed: government agencies working across portfolio boundaries to

achieve a shared goal and an integrated government policy, programme or service response to particular environmental issues.

2.3 Security

Just as environmental issues, the concept of security has also been highly contested. As Gallie (1956) put it, security is an essentially contested concept, inherently resulting in a lack of consensus on its definition. However, several attempts have been made and vary greatly in focus and approach due to the different academic backgrounds in which the concept is used. Security has been defined by Wolfers (1952, p.485) for examples as: “the absence of

threats to acquired values”. This scholar can be found in the International Relation realm and

approaches the concept as something intrinsically political. However, within this same realm said definition is also challenged. As Baldwin (1997, p.13) already states there is a certain kind of ambiguity around the word ‘absence’ and therefore changes this definition slightly to: “a low probability of damage to acquired values”. Much emphasis is laid on what can be described as the four Ss: the state, strategy, science and the status quo (Williams & McDonald, 2018, p.3).

However in the light of a post-Cold War era Buzan (1991) provided an alternative approach in which he argues that the security of human collectives, in contrast with the previously mentioned referent object of the state, is affected by five major sectors: military security, political security, economic security, societal security and environmental security (Williams & McDonald, 2018, p.4). Hereby moving away from the at least two Ss, state and status quo, this definition hints towards a different approach moving away from it International Relation-roots.

As Ullman (1983) also argued this kind definition stipulates an incorporation of risks rather than a focus on threats which allows room for other issues to be introduced into the security agenda. Important is to distinguish the risks from threats. A threat is a measurable entity, like a rival actor, whose defeat will bring security. The latter is a scenario followed by a policy proposal on how to prevent this scenario from becoming real but lacks the comfort of defeat in the concept of threats, since handling risks can result in other risks (Haldén, 2011, p.407). In this sense the definition of security is not only highly contested but also fluid. The nature of security evolves together with the risks and threats to society resulting into an everchanging concept and definition.

(12)

The way Buzan (1991) links security to different sectors is also evident in the changing policy surrounding security. Environmental issues entered the security domain in the late 1960s, early 1970s (Orlando, 2013). However this period might be too premature to think of a coherent set of EU environmental rules. Scholars tend to describe the EU’s attitude to environmental protection at this stage as “incidental”, “responsive” and “unarticulated” (Brinkhorst, 1993, p9). The securitisation process of environmental policies did however evolve. The broader societal awareness together with the evolving international agreements such as the 1972 Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment sparked a change among EU environmental policy resulting in what is dubbed the first integrated environmental security policy within the EU, the 1st_{Environmental Action Programme (EAP) in 1973}

(Krämer, 2012).

The concept of security has changed a lot since the 1st_{EAP and there is still no consensus} on its definition, perhaps even less consensus than prior to the introduction of the different sectors by Buzan (1991). In order to apply focus and demarcate this research the definition of the concept of security will be based on Buzan’s (1991) approach combined with Ullman’s (1983) comments and defined as followed: the managing of risks in the military, political,

economic, societal and environmental realm.

2.4 Environmental security theories

The main debate throughout environmental security theories is that of the ‘high’ and the ‘low’ politics. Originally, in the practice of realism a very narrow and straightforward view of

security is adopted. The state is the main referent object and any kind of threat against the state is met with great force. Fundamental in the realistic view security is the link to

emergency conditions, breakings laws and what needs must (Gaan, 2015, p.52 – 53). This political categorisation is fixed according to realism in such a way that social construction does not play a role.

In contrary to realism, the theory of securitisation, there are no objective threats waiting to be discovered but rather the process of issues being labelled as threats through successful political and social mobilisation (Trombetta, 2008: Gaan, 2015). The theory is based on the efforts of the Copenhagen School, consisting out of a mix of intellectuals and theorists (Floyd, 2010). However labelling the threats as subjective is not completely adequate since individuals cannot decide on their own whether an issue is a security issue, it is therefore rather inter-subjective (Gaan, 2015, p.54). The theory of securitisation opens up some debate on the process of environmental security according to Trombetta (2008, p.588). Firstly, it allows for research into the political process behind the selection of threats and why some threats are prioritised on the political agenda and others are disregarded. Secondly, it

(13)

also identifies the major role of awareness. Awareness of environmental issues can have a relevant role in changing and shaping the political community. The process can create new perceptions on what entails a referent objects and what is defined as the enemy. Lastly, she argues in the line of Benhke (2000, p.91) that the securitisation creates a genuine political process and struggle in which political structures are contested, resulting in political regenerations (Trombetta, 2008, p.588).

Naturally the theory has evolved over time, originally one of the scholars from the

Copenhagen School forcefully claimed that the concept of security refers to state (Wæver, 1995). Only three years after this claim he argues in favour of incorporation of other referent objects of security, including the individual (Floyd, 2010). After the cold war the Wæver et al. (1994) provided an addition to the theory with ‘societal security’. This security focuses on the preserving of cultural capita. It however stressed that this security only serves as an

argument that there is something between the individual and the state in terms of security but it is not necessarily part of the securitisation analysis provided in earlier work (Wæver, et al., 1994, p186). On the other hand in this same book the following passage can be found:

“there is nothing inevitable or permanent about defining security in state centred terms; it has emerged historically and might change again” (Wæver, et al., 1994, p20). Hinting several

times towards the adaptability of the theory within the fluid concept of security. Explaining and justifying this widening has been the centre of Wæver’s more current work. He argues that through the constant widening of the concept of the security, the idea remains the same: a securitising actor calling on the need for survival (Wæver, 2002). According to Floyd (2010, p39) this also means that new (non-traditional) threats can enter the security realm without contradicting the theory. It goes without saying that critics have rejected this claim, arguing that Wæver contradicts the very essence of the original theory (e.g., Corry, 2011).

Nonetheless, it is evident that both realism and the securitisation theory struggle with the characteristics of security and the contrast with the environmental characteristics. Truly traditional scholars refuse to overcome this contrast, yet some to larger extent than others. Deudney (1990, p.461) for example offers three main arguments against this.

1. It is analytically misleading to think of environmental degradation as a national

security threat, because the traditional focus on national security has little in common with either environmental problems or solutions.

2. There is a vast difference in scope and intention between the two concepts. National security inherently focus on national issues, whereas environmental issues have international or even global consequences. Furthermore there is a great difference in

(14)

intention, since wars are waged intentionally due to political or financial gain whereas natural disasters are not.

3. The manner of approaching security or environmental degradation is also so

fundamentally different that it would never fit the same framework. National security requires a hierarchical hard approach whereas environmental issues require a soft horizontal approach.

These arguments might be valid to a certain extent. However, realism has also evolved over time, together with the fluid concept of security. New threats to human life have occurred, new international security threats such as cybercrime entered the national political agenda and perhaps a soft horizontal approach is also not the right way to handle environmental issues. So perhaps Deudney’s (1990) arguments are implausible in our contemporary society.

Another traditional realist scholar also argued against the occurrence of environmental issues in the security domain. According to Mearsheimer (2001) there is a certain ‘hierarchy of security’. First-order problems (security problems) are military threats to the state. Any non-traditional threats, such as environmental issues, are second-order problems and moving these up in the hierarchy would even ‘challenge’ our whole traditional security, according to Mearsheimer (2001). His main argument for the second-order placement is the lack of visibility of this non-traditional threat. As Lacy (2005, p23) also argues, even though the outcome might not be certain and therefore the threat is not entirely visible, there is a scientific consensus that our society is creating human-based climate change nonetheless. So perhaps traditional realists prefer to bury their heads in the sand in regards to the consequences of environmental issues in order to justify the strict distinction.

A more recent scholar offered a different view on relatively traditional realism and

environmental issues. As Gellers (2010, p.6-7) argues it becomes possible to incorporate environmental security into a realist framework when one limits the scope of national security threats to those that pose the strongest correlations to the environment and climate change, and by applying a loose-constructionist interpretation of realism. He offers two arguments for this.

1. The focus is pointed towards the economic consequences of environmental issues. Especially agricultural resource-based economies are at risk when declining

environmental conditions complicate or even completely halt the productivity. This can harm the national security in two ways (Gellers, 2010, p.7-10). One, the lack of

agricultural productivity can lead to a major amount of unemployed citizens who are, due to the lack of knowledge, are also not able to do any other job. This can harm the national

(15)

economy but also the societal wellbeing in terms of welfare plans. Secondly, the lack of production may lead to international tensions since the country can no longer uphold their export agreements. Gellers (2010, p.10-11) even discusses the more radical strain of thought that countries could also invade neighbouring countries to boost their national productivity. This could lead to territorial dispute as well as aggressive protective

measures, which would be classified as an indirect existential threat to national security.

2. Moreover, the argument regarding human security is made. Apart from the most apparent consequences of floods and natural disasters to human life Gellers (2010, p12-13) introduces several other possible consequences. Sea level rises could on the one hand result in displaced individuals seeking refuge, which threatens the security of the recipient state by applying stress to its internal functions in order to adjust for the introduction of a migrant population. On the other hand it could literally drown military influence of certain countries. If they have military stations based in critical areas, they may lose their military influence resulting in a threat to their national security if these were to be attacked in this weak moment.

Nonetheless, Deudney (1990) and Gellers (2010) might still be slightly too traditional in their argumentations. Both scholars focus on the state, the status quo and military strategy in terms of security, which is distinctively linked with nationalism. Gellers (2010) arguments are mainly based on speculation and even though they seem plausible to a certain extent, they might be farfetched in the end.

So perhaps it is time to move away from the traditional perception of security and

environmental issues, since both scholars fail to provide solid argumentation on the matter, both pro and against. Buzan (1991) argues security is no longer defined by the four Ss, states, strategy, science, and the status quo (see: Williams & McDonald, 2018). Threats in our contemporary society are more and more often undefined by geographical border. This is also evident in practice, in the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review in which the U.S. Department of Defence (DoD) officially recognises climate change as a national security issue for the first time. It stated throughout the report that “Climate change and energy will

play significant roles in the future security environment.” (Department of Defense, 2010,

p15). The threat might not come from the climate change itself but the consequences will have a destabilising effect on the world. After this publication the DoD has worked to better integrate climate risk across its operations and long-term planning (Shier & Stanish, 2017). If a traditional government such as America can move away from traditional realism and

(16)

incorporate environmental issues under their security pillar, perhaps traditionalism might not be as ill-suited to environmental issues as previously claimed by scholars.

Contrary to the traditional approach, Beck (1992) offers a very loosely defined approach towards security. The theory of the risk society maps the relationship between the unbinding of social structures, qualitative changes in the nature of risk and shifting patterns of cultural experience. It depicts a civilisation in which one is increasingly forced to deal with the consequences of one’s own development in the form of pollution and environmental degradation (Haldén, 2011, p407).

The risk society theory has gained a lot of advocates especially among political green movements (Mythen, 2004, p12). Mythen (2004) describes how industrialisation and

modernisation have generated uncontrollable risks to the environment, as Beck (1992, p.36) put it neatly: ‘‘poverty is hierarchic, smog is democratic’’. It is argued that the existing

relations of definitions of risk, threats and security were set up to deal with relatively

undisruptive and clear-cut issues. However society has moved passed concepts of referent objects, foes and hierarchal approaches. Environmental issues levelled the playing field in a whole new level since the human being can be both the enemy and the referent object (Mythen, 2004, p.33). Beck continuously makes a case for the prioritising of environmental issues on both the national and international security agenda. He does however also

acknowledge the struggle with incalculableness of the concept (Beck, 2006, p.332 – 333). In the end it remains a matter of ‘hypothetical’ risks, which are based on science induced not-knowing and normative dissent (Beck, 2006, p.334 – 335).

Needless to say, critics have also reacted to the research by Beck (2006). Especially in the environmental section people question the presumption that modern risks can be adequately separated from threats experienced in previous eras of society. The effect of human

presence on the environment dates back ages and ages. Thus the concept is not necessary new or innovative but one must acknowledge that the rate and frequency of environmental risk production has advanced in the last half a century together with the intensification of capitalist production and consumption (Mythen, 2004, p.39). Moreover, the actual impact of environmental issues on routine practices are also disputed according to Mythen (2004, p.38) since, as previously mentioned, there is a grey area of not knowing which makes the calculations imprecise. Since an analysis of the effect of mankind on the environment is well beyond the scope of this research the statement on the incalculableness and grey area surrounding environmental issues will remain just that, a statement to take into consideration.

(17)

Ultimately the traditionalists, realists and risk society advocates might all be right to a certain extent. Theory thus far has offered us insights on how the concept of environmental security has been approached and defined but failed to properly discuss the how.

One interesting hypothesis has been put forward by Hough (2013, p.168). He compares environmental security to the Prisoner’s Dilemma. Two prisoners are comprehended by the police and given a choice to speak or stay silent without being able to discuss with one another. The outcome of provided choices are visible in figure 1.

The most beneficial yet risky option is to stay silent and trust your fellow prisoner. Thus betrayal is the most likely outcome. According to Hough (2013, p.167) the same can be said about the global community and the efforts on managing environmental issues. Efforts of country A can have negative consequences for its economy and be completely in vain when country B fails to do uphold its part of the agreement. As Hough (2013, p.168) described: “Only through the holistic management of environmental threats can the Prisoner’s Dilemma

scenario be escaped and states be freed to act in their people’s real interests rather than being compelled by domestic political constraints to conserve harmful human practices”.

Thus it is of the utmost importance to see the bigger picture, decompartmentalise policies and see environmental issues as a whole and not only react to individual incidents (Hough, 2013, p.168, 169).

This hypothesis links to the tragedy of commons theory originally introduced by Lloyd in 1883 but the theory gained popularity due to the an essay by Hardin in 1968. The theory stipulates that in a system where resources, the ‘commons’, are shared, individual users acting

separately according to their own self-interest behave opposed to the common good of all Figure 1: Prisoner’s Dilemma

(18)

users by squandering or spoiling that resource through their collective action (Hardin G. , 1968). Therefore this problem does not require a technical solution, it requires a fundamental extension of morality according to Hardin (1968, p1243). What started out as a call for

morality and lack of ego-driven decisions evolved into a call for interdisciplinary syntheses in Harden’s following work (Hardin, 1998).

Now several scholars have used this theory in the field of environmental issues. As Cesar (1994) argues the theory has an inherent flaw in regards to environmental issues. The interdisciplinary syntheses requires some sort of general command to uphold. When

discussing the environment and current protocols there is no such thing, resulting in the very same tragedy discussed in the theory (Cesar, 1994, p15).

Whereas behaviourists and economists smoulder at these kinds of social dilemma’s,

institutionalists tend to shy away from the topic. It is however necessary to discuss in order to prevent the environmental tragedy we are facing. Ansari et al (2013) attempted an

institutionalists approach to the theory. Their main argument laid in the construction of the commons. From a classic economic view, formulating commons as values affirm that consensus is highly unlikely without an overarching authority to impose and enforce regulations. To portray the global climate commons as a social construction would allow a transnational issue to transform into a commons (Ansari, Wijen, & Gray, 2013, p1034) The greatness of the social importance of this common may trump the lack of overarching authority.

This theory will serve as a guide throughout this research to see to what extent The

Netherlands has embodied this interdisciplinary syntheses approach in order to escape the prisoner’s dilemma, or the tragedy, described in the theory.

(19)

3. Research design

This research is a mixed-method research based on two topics: the Dutch security policy, approached via a predominately qualitative content analysis, and speeches of Dutch

members of the parliament, approached via a mixed discourse analysis. Both chapters have a limited timeframe from 2010 to 2017. Apart from practical reasons such as time and resource related limitations, there is also a theoretical explanation for this frame. In 2010 the current Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte entered into office. Apart from the four-yearly shifts in parliament due to elections, this frame does provide a relatively steady political climate for analysis. The year 2017 is chosen as an end date to have both policies and possible

evaluations available. Evaluations beyond 2017 are not yet published or made (publicly) available.

3.1 Subchapter 1: Dutch policy

This chapter aims at finding presence of whole-of-government approaches among the Dutch government in regards to environmental issues and security. Moreover, the effort was made to find evidence of the (lack of) implementation of this approach in Dutch policy.

The presence was researched by looking at reports by Dutch Scientific Board of

Governmental Policy (WWR). The WWR has been installed in 1976, and activated in 1998, to assist the Prime Minister of The Netherlands with his political tasks (Instellingswet W.R.R., 1976). The main task of the WWR is to provide scientifically based information on long-term developments which can Dutch harm society. Specifically, the WWR needs to assess possible bottlenecks and provide a multidisciplined and interdepartmental approach towards these developments (WWR, Taak, Werkwijze en Evaluatie, 2016). The WWR is not part of the Dutch government but does advise and works closely with the Prime Minister. Both their close relation to the parliament and their main task makes the WWR specifically suited to analyse the possible presence of the whole-of-government approach in their reports. In order to research the whole-of-government presence and evidence, a content analysis was performed. Content analysis is used to make replicable and valid inferences from data (Krippendorff, 1980). It summarizes themes or patterns in messages, not reporting all details of the entire document. It orders the information in the document via a codebook. Coding can be done quantitively, via computer for example. The focus is then on the amount of

presences of the code which can be useful when relations between codes are already established (Neuendorf, 2016, p126). However since the relations between the concept in this research are not yet established and require a more qualitative approach Neuendorf (2016, p132-133) refers to as ‘human coding’. In human coding there is some level of

(20)

of the codebook and corresponding categories. In practice this means the categories serve as guidelines to code pieces of information throughout documents to order the required information. The researcher observes what is there in the text and does not guess what it is not reported.

The content analysis in this research was executed in the following steps.

1. Defining the research question and the hypothesis

The hypothesis, derived from the previously mentioned theories, is that whole-of-government approach is necessary to adequately handle the environmental issues. When narrowing this down to The Netherlands it results in the main research question: To what extent is a whole-of-government approach used by The Netherlands in regards to incorporating environmental issues into the security domain?

This main research question served as a guideline for the two sub-questions within the content analysis: 1. To what extent is a whole-of-government approach present in the WWR reports? and 2. To what extent is a whole-of-government approach present in Dutch policy?

2. Data collection

The data collection for sub-question 1 was done in the data base of the WWR. In order to find the correct data the following filters were applied.

− Type of data: rapporten aan de regering (official reports) − Time frame: 01.01.2010 – 31.12.2017

− Labels: Klimaat (climate), milieu (environment), klimaatverandering (climate change), klimaat veiligheid (climate security), veiligheid (safety and/or security).

This resulted in 16 reports. However, not all reports suited the scope of the research. Some reports for example only discussed security without any trace of environmental issues and were therefore unfit for this research. This careful scrutinization resulted eventually in six reports provided in appendix B.

The data collection for sub-question 2 was done in the data base of the Dutch government. In order to find the correct data the following filters were applied.

− Type of data: beleidsnota (official policy briefings) − Time frame: 01.01.2010 – 31.12.2017

(21)

− Labels: Klimaat (climate), milieu (environment) klimaatverandering (climate change), klimaat veiligheid (climate security), veiligheid (safety and/or security).

This resulted in 74 policy briefings. These briefings have again been scrutinized resulting in only four suited briefings provided in appendix B.

3. Coding preparation

During this phase the codebook was created according to categories and

conceptualisation provided in the theoretical chapter. The codebook can be found in appendix A. In this phase it was also determined what the unit of analysis is. The unit of analysis refers to what pieces of text within the document are analysed such as chapters, paragraphs or sentences. In this research the unit of analysis was paragraphs to fully grasp the debate on the categories.

4. Coding

In this phase the codebook was applied to every document. Every code was marked within the document and registered in a code sheet to collect all emerging codes.

5. Reporting

In this phase the code sheet was used to draw conclusions from the data and provide them in the analysis. The conclusion was aimed at answering the provided sub-questions.

Moreover, since water management was identified as the only concept to provide evidence on the implementation of the whole-of-government approach in Dutch environmental policy, a desk research into the Dutch Water Plans (NWPs) was performed to uncover hints as to why this topic is rather successful in this approach. The list of NWPs and related documents can be found in Appendix B.

3.2 Subchapter 2: Dutch politicians

The second chapter is a discourse analysis on the transcripts of speeches from Dutch key political figures and the way they frame the Dutch approach to environmental issues. This research uses a performative (post-positive) research design. Hereby the concept of environmental securitisation is marginalised. The focus is on studying language and meaning-making. The research will be performed deductively according to the conceptualisation provided in the theoretical framework.

In order to prevent possible biases in text selection and criteria, four standards will be upheld. The four standards: intertextual models, selves, time and events are based on the discourse analysis research by Hansen (2006).

(22)

1. The intertextual models

The intertextual model will only be official in this thesis. The focus is on the Dutch parliament, both the government and the opposition. The object of analysis is official speeches provided by the Dutch government in their speeches data base. The speech may have occurred within or outside the House of Representatives, varying per speech. Only the speeches available in the governmental data base will be selected in order to apply focus. The following filters were used in the Dutch governmental database to select useful speeches.

− Type of data: toespraken (speeches) − Time frame: 01.01.2010 – 31.12.2017 − Ministries: All ministries

− Labels: Klimaat (climate), milieu (environment), klimaatverandering (climate change), klimaat veiligheid (climate security), veiligheid (safety and/or security).

This resulted in 149 speeches, which were narrowed down to 11 after careful scrutinization to suit the research provided in appendix C.

2. Selves

There will only be one self: the Dutch parliament. Even though within this self, there might different or even contrasting views on the topic, the focus of the analysis lays on the collective view on the subject and not on the interparty differences. Hence the single self.

3. Time

The time is just one moment 2010-2017. As Hansen (2006) describes any timeframe can be categorised as ‘one moment’ when there is no desire to focus on the temporal changes or specific time related frame of mind. No time related comparison will be made in this research, thus one moment is selected.

4. Events

The specific event is the start of the first term of Dutch Prime Minister Rutte’s office. This is not necessarily due to major change when Rutte entered this position but apart from the four-yearly shifts in parliament due to elections, this frame does provide a relatively steady political climate for analysis in terms of members of parliament.

The discursive strategies will be based on both direct and indirect framing. The main focus of direct framing in the discourse analysis is on how The Netherlands approaches

(23)

The analysis will evolve around certain things that stand out such as labels, values,

metaphors and concepts. Moreover, the indirect framing is more based on meshing, where environmental issues and security are seen as similar phenomenon with alike characteristics or when environmental security meshed with a whole-of-government like approach.

(24)

4. Whole-of-government in Dutch policy

This chapter aims at finding presence of whole-of-government approaches among the Dutch government in regards to environmental issues and security. Moreover, the effort is made to find evidence of the (lack of) implementation of this approach in Dutch policy.

4.1 The WWR and the environment

The first subchapter will be an analysis of the Scientific Board of Governmental Policy (WWR) reports. The WWR will serve as a starting point to find the presence of whole-of-government approaches towards environmental issues. When researching the WWR, out of the 101 available, 13 reports discussed environmental issues, six of which fit the criteria and were analysed via the codebook (Appendix B).

The analysis will follow a step-by-step order on the three main concepts of this research: environmental issues, security and possible indications of the whole-of-government approach.

The possible consequences of environmental issues are not necessarily disputed throughout the documents. As for example illustrated in this quote, “The effects of climate change are

closely intertwined with tons of other issues, such as: biodiversity, food supply (regional decline of productivity due to floods and draughts), human health (enlargement of the range of deadly diseases), international stability (increasing pressure on local and regional

communities due to the increase of food and water shortage, draughts and the increase of natural disasters) and migration ” (WWR, 2010, p45, 46), the different societal implications of

environmental issues in the financial, national and international realm are regarded. It is however the amount of attention this concept should receive within the political agenda that differs throughout the analysis.

On the one hand the issue is undervalued in its importance. When discussing the balance of responsibilities of physical security in The Netherlands the WWR categorises environmental issues as “uncertainties” (WWR, 2011, p15). Moreover, “In the case of uncertainties there is

a fundamental doubt regarding the necessity, urge, the framework and the application of policy” (WWR, 2011, p15). This doubt resonates throughout the document where the

consequences of environmental issues are operationalised as factors in a financial risk analysis. Undermining the necessity of a proactive approach, due to the complicated nature of the risk at hand.

Another example of this undervaluation is the blame-game played in the 2014 report. Here, environmental issues “originate in individual behaviour which the government cannot change

(25)

Maken, 2014, p33). Even though there might be some truth to this claim, it undermines the importance of the Dutch government in this matter. As Kennis & Matthijs (2012) argue, the relational gab between the powerful and the powerless is not necessarily one related to knowledge, since environmentally aware citizens very well know how to choose

environmental friendly alternatives, but rather one of impact, since the individual choices are in vain compared to the collective impact of society on the environment. This

conceptualisation of environmental issues is also something rather contradictory in comparison to the other documents, as will be argued in the following part.

On the other hand, environmental issues are regarded as very important. Already in 2010 the WRR argued that “climate change related issues have a far more higher risk than any war

related effort”, thus earning a higher place than conventional security issues in the political

agenda (WWR, 2010, p77). Moreover, in regards to economic growth the WWR argued that

“it is completely justifiable to give up some [economic, red.] growth in order to invest in the security of a country, or [..] energy and fossil fuel dependence” (WWR, 2013, p107).

Noteworthy is the ‘or’ in this sentence, implying that environmental related consequences such as the limited conventional energy and fuel resources is not a matter of national security. This discussion will continue further in the analysis.

Furthermore, in 2017 the WRR argued that “Climate change will increasingly appeal for the

employment of the armed forces in a continuously expanding range of circumstances and functions” (WWR, 2017, p74). This argument supports the 2010 claim of the higher risk and

provides a certain hint towards the diversification of the armed forces beyond the traditional position.

The stance on environmental security is somewhat divers throughout the reports. When reading between the lines one can uncover links between security and the environment. Mostly when environmental related threats are incorporated in security realm. For example

“Physical security is at stake when material and immaterial interests deemed important by society are at risk, such as [..] increasing amount of natural disasters” (WWR, 2011, p15), or “The security of our country also encounters ecological issues, such [..] increasing

changeable weather due to climate change, decreasing biodiversity and scarcer resources”

(WWR, 2014, p10). The WWR does however seem hesitant in regards to boldly securitising the environmental concept. Minor differentiations such as the previously discussed

‘uncertainties’ in the 2011 report or the distinction between national security and

environmental related issues in the 2010 report beg the question whether environmental security is actually accepted as a concept.

(26)

It is only the 2017 report that one can answer this question. The report discusses the fluid nature of security, and how it has changed together with the newly emerged threats “energy,

climate, resources and the cyber domain have therefore also become a part of the Dutch security agenda” (WWR, 2017, p58). It is also the first WWR document to actually use the

words ‘environmental security’ directly. Environmental security is discussed as a “new but

continuously more present” issue in the security agenda (WWR, 2017, p68). The direct link

between security and the environment is also made in the report by discussing the potential new functions the military power might have to evolve in, in order to suit the environmental security need of contemporary society (WWR, 2017, p74). The WWR does however

acknowledge the fact that environmental issues are not yet fully imbedded into the Dutch security domain but the process is developing slowly (WWR, 2017, p74).

Ironically, whereas the discussion on environmental issues, their consequences and their relation to security is very divergent throughout the WRR reports, the advice regarding policy is not. The call for some sort of unified approach which characteristics can be categorised under the whole-of-government approach is evident in all the six reports.

Already in 2010 did the WWR acknowledge that security has become “a very complex topic

with various threats, resulting in the necessary involvement and cooperation of a wide variety of actors, organisations and disciplines” (WWR, 2010, p77). In 2017 the WWR provided a

very effective expression of the desired situation, regarding whole-of-government

approaches. “Thinking in terms of effectiveness and capability is far more important than

holding on to traditional power balances and relations” (WWR, 2017, p187).

Apart from the extensive hits on cooperation, integration and incorporation it also became abundantly clear that all of those concepts are lacking in the Dutch government. In the 2013 report for example, the WWR discusses the ability of The Netherlands to pursue innovation and research upcoming complicated societal processes. They have research programs on the topic of environmental issues, but fail to pursue a wide, integrated and structural innovation-agenda focused on these same complicated processes, such as environmental degradation (WWR, 2014, p372).

Moreover, in 2017 the WWR describes the security policy of The Netherlands as “highly

compartmentalised and tradition, with separate disciplines for internal and external security”

(WWR, 2017, p178). Strikingly the WWR also discusses cybersecurity as another emerging threat to security but also acknowledge there is an integrated defence cyber strategy. In said strategy the threat and concrete proactive approaches throughout different ministries and disciplines are determined (WWR, 2017, p77). Thus a whole-of-government approach on cybersecurity has successfully been implemented.

(27)

To conclude the WWR incorporated environmental issues into the security domain in their advice and reports to the Dutch parliament. They also recommend a whole-of-government approach as conceptualised in this research but emphasise the fact that said approach is not yet operational in this field in The Netherlands.

4.2 Dutch policy and the environment

In order to confirm or dispute the conclusion from the WWR analysis, a content analysis of the Dutch security policy has been executed. Unfortunately only 19 out of the 143 policies produced until December 2017 contained some form of environmental security and only three were eligible for the content analysis. This disappointing amount is perhaps already a hint towards the confirmation of the WWR conclusion.

When looking at the security policy as a whole, one document can be identified in relation to a whole-of-government approach in the environmental field. In June 2016 the European Council presented the Strategy on the EU’s Foreign and Security Policy. The Dutch

government also interpreted this policy into the domestic field. The policy does acknowledge the necessity of “reforming and integrating the subject of climate change into the security

agenda” (Rijksoverheid, 2016, p3). Moreover, it also stipulates that “The Netherlands should approach it more like a joined-up approach [a.k.a. whole-of-government, red.]. This is necessary to strategically prioritise the field of economic diplomacy [..] and climate change”

(Rijksoverheid, 2016, p4). Apart from that passage the entire document does not provide any more indications on how to implement this approach. Thus this request seems to have no further operationalisation or implementation, since no evidence can been identified in Dutch policy and practice thus far.

The one field in which a whole-of-government approach is operationalised and implemented is water management. As identified in the Dutch National Waterplan (NWP) “due to soil

subsidence and climate change, the flood threat will increase: the sea levels are rising, our rivers have to drain more and more water and the chances of extreme wet period increase”

(Rijksoverheid, 2014, p11). In order to manage this risk the NWP is produced every six years to revise the Dutch water strategy. The document itself is produced by the ministry of

Infrastructure and Water Management and the ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy. However, the water security policy is produced in cooperation with Ministry of Security and Justice (Rijksoverheid, 2014, p7). This concretely means the Ministry of Security and Justice works with the other two ministries to produce security plans, risk assessments and contingency plans (Rijksoverheid, 2015, p10). There is also a cooperation with specific security regions more prone to the threat, due to geographical disadvantages of this region

(28)

(Rijksoverheid, 2015, p15). Thus the whole-of-government approach is evidently implemented in the field of water management in The Netherlands.

To conclude, the claims regarding the lack of whole-of-government approaches towards environmental security in The Netherlands as manifested in the reports by the WWR are also evident in Dutch policy to a great extent. The field of water management provides a

successful example of an exception to those claims. The implementation of the whole-of-government approach is very much evident in this field and also manages the consequences of environmental issues in this manner. Nonetheless this is unfortunately the only example in Dutch policy.

4.3 Dutch water management

Even though water management is stressed as the only example this can however also hold a positive promise for other fields. Perhaps delving further into the Dutch water management policy can provide us with some clues why the whole-of-government approach is

successfully employed here, serving as guidelines for the future.

The Dutch National Water Plan (NWP) is published every six years and is the legally binding and leading policy document regarding water management and spatial planning

(Rijksoverheid, 2009). The first NWP served from 2009 to 2015, the second and current NWP from 2016 to 2021. The second NWP starts in 2016 due to an intermediate

modification in 2015. When looking more thoroughly at the different NWPs and its changes throughout the years, one can uncover two major trends within this plan: the forced

cooperation in water management and the increasing threat of environmental issues on Dutch society.

Firstly, the forced cooperation in water management. The main controversy within whole-of-government approaches revolves around leadership. The Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management has the leading role in water management but horizontal cooperation has been evident from the start of the NWP. Contrary to the ‘catchphrase without

consequences’ as dubbed by Rotman (2010), the approach is properly shaped throughout the NWPs. In the first NWP the necessity to cooperate is continuously stressed throughout the document, including an entire chapter devoted to the topic. More precisely the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management has to establish interministerial cooperation working on policy, decision making and also divide costs among different ministries (Rijksoverheid, 2009, p35) When looking at the current NWP the introduction states that due to budget cuts there has been major changes in terms of management and cooperation structures

(Rijksoverheid, 2015, p5). Even though the decisions in the NWP are legally binding, the mentioned budget cuts might have been an extra push to establish promised cooperation.

(29)

The initial big cue regarding the successful establishment of said cooperation is the publisher list of the second NWP. Apart from the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management, the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy is co-publisher of the NWP.

Moreover, as discussed in the previous subchapter, there is evidence of cooperation among different ministries on different parts of water management, such as cooperation with the Ministry of Security and Justice regarding crisis management (Rijksoverheid, 2015, p10). The NWP has also designed a bottoms-up system in which local municipalities and regional Polder Boards provide advise to the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management. Subsequently the ministry ensures these interests are incorporated into policy together with any other ministry involved in the matter (Rijksoverheid, 2009).

Secondly, the increasing threat of environmental issues is also named as a factor. In the first NWP the general approach to environmental issues is very hesitant and cautious. In terms of measures and planning the approach was based on the 2006 report by The Royal

Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI) (Rijksoverheid, 2009, p27). The KNMI pledged to continuously update their risk analyses in line with the continuously changing nature of environmental issues. If major changes were detected the NWP would be adjusted accordingly.

Nonetheless it soon became apparent that the first NWP required an intermediate modification due to signals from other reports than the KNMI. In 2014 the Climate Effect Report on Policy Planning (PlanMER) was published. Even though the original goal of the PlanMER was to focus on offshore windmill parks, due to the newly agreed upon measures to move away from fossil fuels, it also uncovered the general lack of completion in the NWP (Ginkel, Tack, Duin, & Rienks, 2016). General directions were provided but implementation guidelines were incomplete, resulting in an intermediate report in 2015.

Noteworthy in this intermediate report is the following passage in the introduction: “The

Commission Climate Effect Reporting advises the PlanMER to be integrated into the security policy of The Netherlands” (Rijksoverheid, 2014, p7). The ComMER advise is disregarded

since the PlanMER already entails all security related solutions so the Ministry of

Infrastructure and Water Management argued it is redundant to do so (Rijksoverheid, 2014, p7). Even though the intermediate NWP does not securitise the environment in that sense, it does provide a far more detailed security plan for possible environmental consequences. The main reason behind this plan appears to be the imminent and, perhaps most important, visible threat it poses to The Netherlands. “The Netherlands will adapt a whole new water

management strategy with higher norms”, by means of substantiation the report argues that

(30)

precisely calculated ” and “via computer simulations and flood scenarios we can visualise among other things [..] the sea and river level rising and its consequences” (Rijksoverheid,

2014, p9, 11).

Moreover, it is also interesting to look at the concept of ‘multi-layer security’. It was

introduced in the first NWP as a three-layered approach: prevention, sustainability, and crisis management (Rijksoverheid, 2009, p6). Yet all approaches in the first layer, prevention, are aimed at properly managing water, dykes and meadows, being a typical ministerial focused approach. In the second NWP multi-layer security gets a different connotation in the first layer. Prevention in this sense is about “smart combinations” between ministries, portfolios and institutional pillars in order to have a fully integral approach towards all preventive measures, including measures on environmental issues, in order to uphold the newly adapted higher norms as a result of the increased visibility of the threat is poses (Rijksoverheid, 2015, p15).

To conclude the analysis of the Dutch water management approaches provides us with two concepts that pose a strong link to the successful whole-of-government approach of the topic. The organised leadership as legally forced upon the topic and the strong visibility due to new technology can be identified in the NWPs as very important topics for its success and are perhaps important examples for other environmental issue topics.

(31)

5. Whole-of-government among Dutch politicians

In this chapter official speeches by Dutch member of parliament will be analysed in order to uncover the presence or absence of whole-of-government approaches and securitisation of the environment by Dutch politicians. As previously mentioned, only official speeches published by the Dutch government will be selected. An overview of the analysed speeches can be found in Appendix C.

5.1 General observations

Initially, prior to looking in depth into the speeches the ministerial origin of the politicians does already provide a preliminary hint towards the all-embracing concept of environmental

issues.

Figure 2: ministerial origin of speeches

Visualised in figure two is the ministerial division of the speeches analysed in this chapter. On the one hand it is a positive observation to see the apparent involvement of at least five ministries in environmental related issues. It does however not automatically mean there is a cooperation between them. Moreover, unfortunately both the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Justice and Security are conspicuous by their absence. No official speeches from those two ministries on environmental related issues are available in given timeframe.

5.2 In depth analysis of speeches

When looking at the speech by Bussemaker, former Minister of Culture, Education and science she discussed environmental security in a different light (Bussemaker, 2017). In her speech she discusses three trends she identifies as a Minister, both within her ministry but

9% 18% 9% 46% 9% 9%

Ministery of Infrastructure and Water Mangement

Ministry of General Affairs Ministery of Social Affairs and Employment

Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy

Ministry of Culture, Education and Science

(32)

also in society as a whole. Firstly, she argues that worlds become more divided. Linking it to her own experience she regrets focusing so much on her own ministry since influences from other fields of study would have benefitted her work and the general policy produced by the government. Secondly, she discusses the growing indifference and inequality among Dutch society. Society easily blames the politicians and the politicians easily blame society. Which leads directly towards her third argument, the lack of durability and investment in the

environment. The trend throughout the whole speech is integration, integration of people, ministries and policies. Bussemaker is not afraid to draw parallels between issues in the environment, educational systems or science. She ties them all together with the same solution: cooperation. Unfortunately she provides no concrete suggested action to this solution.

This is however the only speech that hints towards some sort of whole-of-government approach. Even though all speeches discuss the necessity of environmental issues, there is little to no incentive in regards to cooperation and integration.

A strong example of this is the topic of ‘circular economy’. It is agreed upon in the Paris Climate Summit to strive for a circular economy in which natural resources are recycled as much as possible and products are designed in a sustainable fashion. Many speeches discuss this concept but the highly pillarized nature of the Dutch government shines through all.

Secretary of State Klijnsma from the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment discusses the circular economy concept in relation to unfair competition for Dutch construction workers (Klijnsma, 2016). The pressure on Dutch employees to use sustainable products may result in a favouring of foreign workers since they might not have to oblige to these rules, resulting in a lower employment opportunity for The Netherlands. Klijnsma makes a strong note for this in her speech by using words such as “Dutch painters have to count on European

support” and “we see a dangerous downside” (Klijnsma, 2016), without any emphasis on the

possible positive consequences for the environment for example, thus rather as a burden on the Dutch employment.

Moreover, Secretary of State Dijksma from the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy also discusses the concept of circular economy. In her speech at Deltalinqs, one of the main players in the Rotterdam harbour, she discusses the process of creating a more sustainable Rotterdam harbour. This may however not trump the productivity and this process should therefore also be tailored and adjusted to said productivity (Dijksma, Toespraak van staatssecretaris Dijksma bij het Deltalinqs-diner, 2016).

Environmental security and the whole-of-government approach in The Netherlands