Presentation short abstract

Drawing on feminist, postcolonial, and ecological jurisprudence lenses, we explore the dilemmas of engaging with power in addressing the water–energy–peace nexus and how critical scholarship might navigate the “rules of engagement” with militarized institutions without reproducing their logics.

Presentation long abstract

Mainstream climate security research has long been dominated by positivist frameworks that measure and securitize climate risks through militarized and technocratic logics. Yet such approaches often obscure the relational, feminist, and postcolonial dimensions of climate insecurity, especially where access to water and energy intersects with struggles for peace. This paper reflects on the dilemmas of engaging with power in the context of the water–energy–peace nexus, particularly in conflict-affected regions where access to water and energy is central to survival, livelihoods, and repair. Drawing on feminist, postcolonial, and ecological jurisprudence lenses, we explore how critical scholarship might navigate the “rules of engagement” with militarized institutions without reproducing their logics. Instead, we argue for approaches that center subjects—human and non-human alike—as referents of climate security, while amplifying everyday practices of peacebuilding and relational care. This orientation reframes water and energy not merely as technical inputs for security but as foundations for justice, demilitarized resilience, and planetary healing. By tracing the conditions that have made dialogue with power possible, this paper proposes a critical framework for engaging with security actors in ways that resist securitization while advancing more feminist, postcolonial and ecologically just and sustainable pathways to peace.

Presentation short abstract

Why is climate security discourse dominated by a concern with climate impacts on security, whilst saying so much less on the converse relationship - the impacts of conflict and security, and more broadly war and militarism, on climate change and climate policy?

Presentation long abstract

Interest in the linkages between climate change and security is dominated by concern with one particular causal pathway, namely how climate change affects or might come to affect security (plus the many intervening variables and mechanisms that might link them). By contrast, sustained analyses of how security – or more broadly violence, armed conflict, war and militarism – affect or might come to affect climate change are few and far between. What explains this pattern, which applies especially to mainstream policy-oriented climate security research and advocacy, but holds also for more critical scholarship, in political ecology included? Drawing on dedicated interviews with climate policymakers and campaigners, as well as 15 or so years’ work on climate security issues, this paper argues that this pattern has nothing to do with the importance, directness or clarity of the respective pathways – but is rather a function of the political and funding priorities of Western militaries, and of those development, humanitarian and environmental organisations (both governmental and non-governmental) which are connected to them. These political interests have exerted such a pull, the paper argues, that even critical including political ecology research in the area has been decisively shaped by it. The paper concludes by calling for political ecologists and other critical climate security scholars to work to correct this imbalance, so that both discourse and politics in this area come to focus much more than presently on the impacts and implications of militarism and war.

Presentation short abstract

Defence planning faces high levels of uncertainty and climate change adds more complexity, shaping both the causes and character of warfare. How can defence scientists strengthen evidence for capability decisions and engage in a way that is generative, reflexive, and morally responsible?

Presentation long abstract

Political ecology has long challenged securitised framings that cast climate change as a linear “threat multiplier”. This presentation takes that critique seriously and questions how defence scientists can engage with these perspectives in a way that is generative, reflexive, and morally responsible? Defence planning faces high levels of uncertainty and climate change adds more complexity, shaping both the causes and character of warfare. My role, as a defence scientist, is to strengthen evidence for capability decisions, but this is not neutral. Choices about data, definitions, and frameworks embed politics: whose security counts, and on what terms? Rather than defend the status quo, I propose a layered approach that opens space for dialogue: combining critical ethics (guardrails against securitisation and appropriation), systemic risk modelling (to capture non-linear climate impacts), and institutional diagnosis (that addresses issues caused by short-termism and dispersed responsibilities undermine adaptation). Empirically, I will draw on work to develop a conceptual taxonomy and a dynamic, recursive model, adapted from the spirit of Planetary Boundaries, capable of mapping how vulnerabilities and adaptive capacities manifest across temporal and organisational scales. My interest is in how we can develop meta-theoretical openness that can move beyond critique-versus-practice and become a shared project that respects political ecology’s insights while addressing the operational realities of climate security and the institutional logics of national security.

Presentation short abstract

The contribution will discuss the questions: “Is there common ground between political ecology and mainstream security studies, how useful could it be and for whom?”

Presentation long abstract

Perspectives of political ecologists and scholars of mainstream security studies could hardly be further apart. While the former stresses the importance of (historically grown) power asymmetries, inequality and overall complexity, the world of the latter is a bit simpler: threats everywhere. Being a human geographer and political ecologist on the one hand and having been involved in the education of German police forces on the other hand, I claim to have some understanding of both perspectives. Against this background, I am happy to accept the “invitation” of the convenors of the panel to reflect on the questions: “Is there common ground between political ecology and mainstream security studies, how useful could it be and for whom?” A potential concept for common ground could be resilience that is used by both communities, although with different connotations and purposes. The quick answer regarding the usefulness could be that security studies and security providers would benefit from a more holistic and power-sensitive view that political ecology has to offer. But is there really nothing that political ecology can learn from the risk and conflict analysis that security studies and security providers carry out? I doubt it. These are the questions and thoughts, I will share based on a review of the relevant literature, especially in the field of climate change and conflict as well as experience and insights, gained during extensive fieldwork on conflicts in northern Kenya, western Brazil and northern Bolivia. I see this contribution as a starting point for future collaboration.

Presentation short abstract

The dissent amongst critical political ecology and scientists who develop securitised framings linking climate change to conflict and displacement is analysed by the heuristics of critique as mediation.

Presentation long abstract

There are different opinions amongst critical political ecology and scientists who develop securitised framings linking climate change to conflict and displacement. When there is dissent, and communication stalls, mediation might be a way forward. Mediation starts with the employment of descriptive ethics depicting the senses of justice that each party involved has towards the contested topic. This is done to explore common grounds for the renewal of relations and to facilitate negotiation processes. From here, the paper develops critique as mediation as a heuristic for academic analysis.

Critique as mediation is grounded in procedural ethics of democratic deliberation. It considers how justice is dealt with in actual proceedings, respecting the importance of diverse needs and emotions by considering critique of situated positionalities, critique of ideology and personalist critique. It provides analysis of local constellations of actors and their points of dissent or conflict, as well as the potentials for mutual understanding and cooperation. It is about exploring the background of different justice claims and making this information accessible for further democratic deliberation. It thereby creates a basis for joint negotiations on the different claims' appropriateness and supports paths to mutual understanding and more qualitative discussions – in this case between scientists.

Presentation short abstract

Drawing on empirical findings from debates on EU's raw materials policy, this paper critically explores how narratives of climate and supply security intersect. It discusses the potential for productive dialogue from a critical political ecology perspective.

Presentation long abstract

Demand for raw materials such as lithium, copper, and rare earths has surged due to decarbonization efforts and a renewed focus on geopolitical concerns. In response, the European Union adopted the Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA) in 2024. Policymakers presented the CRMA as essential for security and strategic autonomy. However, critics warn that the CRMA may hinder climate neutrality and democratic resilience by marginalizing resource justice perspectives, particularly regarding new domestic mining projects. This study uses a discursive analytical approach to examine how dominant and marginalized narratives interact in ongoing policy debates. Using qualitative interviews, policy documents, and participatory observation, the analysis reveals how security- and competitiveness-oriented narratives consolidate authority through discursive co-optation and normative appeals to security. Conversely, perspectives centered on sufficiency, circularity, and participatory governance remain confined to broad, sometimes vague claims and struggle to challenge oversimplified framings of climate security. The findings illustrate the challenges faced by those pushing for alternative perspectives: engaging with dominant narratives can create opportunities but also risks perpetuating extractivist and securitized agendas. The paper reflects on the potential and limits of more generative dialogue between narrative positions in EU raw material governance, drawing on critical political ecology. By bridging empirical insights with broader conceptual reflection, the study contributes to our understanding of how (counter-)narratives emerge, adapt, and are constrained within EU raw material policy. More broadly, the study considers how political ecology scholarship might navigate the ethical challenges of engaging with hegemonic security discourses during periods of accelerating militarization and polycrisis.

Presentation short abstract

Using Nigeria’s FHC, the paper shows how ES and PE overlook the shifting processes that drive violence. A Processual Political Ecology approach traces how climate pressures interact with institutional choices and power struggles, revealing politics rather than scarcity as the key accelerator.

Presentation long abstract

This paper uses the Nigerian farmer–herder conflict (FHC) to reflect on the possibilities and limits of meaningful dialogue between political ecology and mainstream climate security thinking. FHC scholarship is trapped between Environmental Security (ES)'s Malthusian scarcity model and traditional Political Ecology (PE), which is faulted for neglecting the "right sort of politics" (Moritz, 2006). Established frameworks thus fail to capture the fluidity and temporal mutation of FHC, leaving the "intervening triggers" unresolved. This paper resolves this theoretical deadlock by proposing an integrated Processual Political Ecology framework. This approach traces how conflicts unfold through specific sequences of events and institutional choices, demonstrating that climate-induced transhumance is amplified and shaped by institutional politics. Holistic tracing of events, actions, and actors reveals that conflict escalation is driven by institutional politics rather than by resource scarcity.

The FHC provides a critical empirical test for engaging the Mainstream Security Studies (MSS) mandate. Findings reveal that engagement is fundamentally contested: policy elites readily incorporate the ecological critique but consistently resist evidence on the processual politics that serve as the conflict's actual accelerants.

The central ethical imperative for Political Ecology is to seize this moment and define its terms. By uncompromisingly foregrounding processual politics, this study insists on a framework that demands fundamental governance reforms, preventing the MSS apparatus from simply greenwashing structural problems and legitimising continued militarised responses in the "expanding theatre of violence.

Presentation short abstract

Reimagining Climate Security: Environmental Peacebuilding in Conflict-Affected Regions

Presentation long abstract

This paper reimagines the relationship between climate and security by moving away from dominant narratives of climate change as a “conflict multiplier” toward a paradigm of environmental peacebuilding. Situated within critical political ecology, it challenges the securitization of climate change and highlights research showing its potential to promote collaboration and resilience (Breese, Ritzer, and Gilmour 2015; Rüttinger et al. 2017). Instead of presenting climate change as a driver of conflict, the paper examines how shared climate vulnerabilities can encourage communities to transcend political and ideological divisions and work collectively for climate action.

Drawing on my experience working in conflict-affected regions such as Jammu and Kashmir, Ladakh and Northeast India, which are shaped by deep historical conflict and intensifying environmental stress, the paper analyses how climate impacts may generate opportunities for intergroup dialogue, trust-building, and cooperation. Studies indicate that shared environmental challenges, including resource scarcity and disaster-induced displacement, can foster collaboration and contribute to more enduring forms of peace (Youngs et al. 2018). This perspective reflects Herbert Kelman’s insight that collective threats can unify divided groups, reimagining climate change as a catalyst for cooperation rather than conflict (Kelman 2016).

Through this conceptual recalibration, the paper contributes to dialogue between critical political ecology and mainstream security studies, highlighting practical possibilities for more inclusive, community-rooted responses while remaining attentive to the politics and risks of such engagement.

Presentation short abstract

This paper shows how assumptions about “human nature” shape climate-security debates and how ethnographic insights from India challenge securitized narratives, thereby illustrating how political ecology can open the way to more reflexive approaches to climate (in)security and future-making.

Presentation long abstract

Debates on climate, conflict, and the future rest on deeply embedded assumptions about “human nature,” from Hobbesian and Randian imaginaries of competition to Kropotkin’s and Rousseau’s traditions of mutual aid and cooperation. These philosophical lineages quietly structure today’s climate-security discourse, shaping whether climate change is framed as a threat multiplier leading to violence or as a catalyst for solidarity and collective resilience. This paper argues that divergent interpretations of these foundational discourses form one of the principal divides between mainstream security studies and political ecology. These discourses about human nature also mediate how we interpret the past and see the future. Making these assumptions explicit collaboratively and opening them to scrutiny offers a productive starting point for dialogue.

During my three months of ethnographic fieldwork in Varanasi, India, I explored how locals view “climate change”, “resilience”, “security”, and other discourses. My paper describes how local realities challenge the basic assumptions underlying many classic security discourses. These dynamics reveal not only the limits of securitized, state-centric frameworks but also the importance of acknowledging multiple local and global knowledge systems that unsettle dominant climate-security imaginaries. Rather than evidence of “climate conflict,” the Varanasi case illuminates historically rooted inter-communal relations, harm done by state power, and everyday practices of coexistence, agency, and resilience that resist causal narratives favored in classical security studies.

Political ecology can enrich security studies by offering alternative narratives of agency and cooperation that conventional metrics miss, proposing a meta-theoretical openness that enables dialogue without collapsing critique into utility.