CHAPTER-1

INTRODUCTIONClimate change, in which man-made global warming is a major factor, will likely have dramatic and long lasting consequences with profound security implications, making it a challenge the United States must urgently take up. The security implications will be most pronounced in places where the effects of climate change are greatest, particularly affecting weak states already especially vulnerable to environmental destabilization. Two things are vitally important: stemming the tide of climate change and adapting to its far-reaching consequences. This project examines the destabilizing effects of climate change and how the military could be used to mitigate global warming and to assist at-risk peoples and states to adapt to climate change, thereby promoting stability and sustainable security.

Traditionally, national security is defined in terms of the ability of the state to protect its interest from external aggressions and these interests are broadly defined as territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of the nation (Walt 1991:213). One can see a paradigm shift in the security concept of the nation states after the emergence of non-traditional security aspects like climate change, biodiversity, food security, health security, transitional crimes etc. (Brown 1996:31). It was the international conference on the relationship between the Disarmament and Development convened by United Nations General Assembly in 1987 that the concept non-traditional security aspects came into prominence. Three years later in 1990, United Nations Human Development Report considered economic crisis as one of the crucial non-military threat to the society. This heralded a vibrant discussion on the non-traditional security aspects concerning the security of nation states.

The concept of securitizations finds place in the Copenhagen school led by Barry Buzan , Ole Weaver and Jaap de Wilde. They says: “as result of “speech act”- the process in which an issue is discussed in the public domain which gradually gains

attention and finally perceiving the problem as a national or international agenda for security.” Accordingly any problem can be transformed to existential threats which needs an energy attention. A kind of “political manipulation” is essential in the process of securitization to convince the concerned actors (Government, NGOs and other non –state actors etc.) to securitize the issue. Thus, the followers of the Copenhagen school are of the opinion that the security is a “speech act” since the process of securitization task is facilitated by stake holders. The stakeholders include politicians, NGOs, Government, media, lobbyists etc.

Buzan categorized the security aspects into different layers like political security, military security, societal security and environmental security. He is of the opinion that decisions of the center always affect the periphery and environmental security is not an exception. One can see this contrast when the rich nations pledge only paltry emission cuts till 2020. As per the report of United Nations Framework Convention on climate change, the developed countries have committed to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions by a meager three percentage from 2013 to 2020 (UNFCCC 2011:5). The review shows that countries have collectively committed to a reduction expected of the developed countries so as to keep temperature from rising more than two degrees above the per-industrial era-a tipping point that leads to dangerous climate change. Ironically it is these rich countries which are compelling developing countries to drastically cut down the rate of GHG emissions.

Environmental issues are becoming a regular feature of centre-periphery dialogues and tensions. The centre encroaches in the policies and developmental process of the periphery in the name of environmental security. At the same time the periphery has been blaming the industrialized centre for creating problems in the first place. The North-South debate is all about these differences. The principal of common but differentiated responsibilities is the underlying factor of North-South debate ( Kyoto protocol 1997).

The global trends in the climate change shows that during the last 150 years the global average surface temperature have increased by 0.76 degree Celsius (IPCC 2007:10). Along with this the average global temperature has increased from 0’4

degree Celsius to 0.8 degree Celsius over the past 140 years. National oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in their report dated 2 August 2013 says that 2012 was one of the ten warmest years. Even though there are substantial evidences show that climate is changing in its varying degrees, there are skeptics who say that there is no proof regarding the human activities leading to climate change. They say that climate change is a part of the natural world order and there is nothing to worry about it. The problems of AIDS, poverty, spread of nuclear weapons require more attention than the issues of climate change. The mainstream view represented the inter-Governmental panel on Climate change and UNFCCC states that their main aim is to gather maximum scientific data to deal with the aftermath of Climate Change.

In the above mentioned geo-political situation the study would like to analyze the impact of climate change and the role of the south in the on going debate on climate change with special reference to India.

India is perceived as one of the most obdurate opponents of an effective global climate regime that would also impose responsibilities for early mitigation efforts on emerging economies. The government has untiringly repeated the mantra of “common, but differentiated responsibilities” (for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions) and it has also talked of the necessary transfer of new and additional financial resources and technology on concessionary terms if cooperation on emission abetment was to be expected from it and from other developing countries. This hardline stance has come under increasing attack, specially since the Copenhagen summit in late 2009. Opposition was articulated not only by developed countries, most prominently from European Union member states and the United states, but also by poorer, developing and island states as well as interest groups and social movements inside India. As a result the country staunch opposition to compromise international level has slightly eroded; India offer voluntary mitigation commitments for the first time (at Copenhagen), much to the chagrin of leftist and ultra-nationalist forces in the country. An even sharper turn taken by the Indian government is manifested in the domestic initiatives it has made to reduce India’s carbon footprint by formulating new pro-active climate change strategies, including efforts to

1) Lower the energy intensity of industrial production and of household appliances and building;

2) Increase the share of renewable energies in the total energy consumption; and

3) scale up afforestation rates (see below).

This is accompanied by the proliferation of new environmental acts, the launching of official missions and institutions at every political level, and juridical activism in environmental matters, most prominently on the part of the Supreme and Higher Courts. If we simply took a headcount of new legislative actions and institutional innovations since about 2006, India would count among the countries most concerned about the state of the environment (see below).

This charge of tack with regard to international climate policy and the big shift with regard to eco-friendly domestic policies can be explained by learning effects- namely , a serious reappraisal of official strategies through the acknowledgement , in stages, that India will be harder hit by global warming than most other economies and will have to save energy anyway because of mounting shortages and growing import dependence. These learning effects may have been strengthened by

1) Discussion with partners from emerging economies and other developing countries in the last three climate summits;

2) the desire to be perceived as a responsible global power by the international community, deserving therefore better representation and a greater say in international organizations, reinforced by the feeling of progressive isolation in the negotiation process;

3) the strengthening of environmentally friendly group within India.

Before I enter into the analysis, it is necessary to present a brief recapitulation of the official position of the Indian government with regard to climate mitigation responsibilities and its empirical foundation. This will help us understand why India’s previous hardline position lost adherents and it will also assist us in gauging the extent to which the Indian government has moved toward a more

climate-friendly position. Then we will review the slow erosion of this position with regard to international; commitments and analyze the initiatives and actions the government has taken on the domestic front , thereby also confronting the remaining shortcomings and deficiencies in I implementation of legislative and institutional activism. Finally, we will enumerate and assess the weight of cause for

1) the relative shift in India’s position on global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the Copenhagen summit onwards and

2) the more pronounced domestic activism. This will include speculations about the remaining roadblocks for even more proactive climate policies.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

This research work tried to answer a few prominent questions, which often arise in the minds of the students of the international politics and environmentalists. The questions like what is securitization of climate change? Why climate change is a national security in recent times? What are the root causes of the shifted of the security concept? Is climate change is a driven factor behind the security of a nation? What are the impacts of the climate change in India? What is India’s position in the climate change negotiations? How India stand in dealing with the climate change problems? Ho climate change becomes a major security concept now?

LITERATURE REVIEW

The literature has identified multiple connections between climate change and security. The general discourse on climate change is very complex and there are evidences for both securitization and climatization. First, a broader overview of existing perspectives within the"environmental security” literature is provided. Second, more in-depth knowledge is provided by looking at previously conducted research relating to the discourse and practices surrounding climate change.

Overall, the literature review provides the basis on which to build this research, and simultaneously locates it within the existing body of literature.

4.1 Climate Change and Security – Where Are the Links?

Several links between climate change and security have been established within the environmental security literature. Climate change commonly is seen to threaten national and human security directly or through secondary impacts, e.g., causing resource scarcity. Gemenne, Barnett, Adger and Dabelko (2014: 4) identify four key areas of investigation within the literature on climate change and security: violent conflict, forced (mass) migration, reversed causality, and risks to human security. These “themes” often can be found within the political discourse as well.

First, probably the largest body of research has been done on the connections between climate change and violence. Specifically this type of research considers if and how “climate change may increase the risk of violence” as well as “the potential mechanisms through which climate change may increase that risk” (Gemenne et al. 2014: 4). While some scholars have made strong claims about causal connections between climate change and increased risk of violent conflict (e.g., see Hsiang and Burke 2014), others remain critical to that connection and have found little evidence to explain convincingly the relationship between climate and conflict (see Gleditsch 2012). Thus, instead of portraying climate change as a direct cause of conflict it has often been referred to as a “threat multiplier” instead (Barnett 2013: 198). This body of research is connected closely to the

“environmental conflict thesis”, by Thomas Homer-Dixon. A commonly featured theme is resource scarcity as a key driver for various conflicts. As natural resources are seen to decrease, civil strife and the likelihood for violent conflict could increase (Floyd 2008; see also Homer-Dixon 1999).

Second, another focus within the "climate security” literature is on forced (mass) migration as a result of a changing climate, but also how climate-induced migration might cause and spread violent conflict. Major decreases in living conditions or loss of territory due to rising sea-levels could trigger mass migration in various regions. Similar to the first body of literature, climate change is considered a substantial threat to the security of states and people. However, some scholars point out that a clear-cut connection between climate change, migration and violent conflict is hard to establish empirically (e.g., see Gemenne et al. 2014: 4).

Third, a lot less attention has been paid to reversed causality where “conflict is a powerful driver of vulnerability to climate change” (Gemenne et al. 2014: 4). While it remains contested to which extent climate change can directly or indirectly cause violent conflict, some scholars are certain that it is violent conflict that renders people more vulnerable and exposed to climate change (see Barnett 2006) This body of literature considers that this reversed causality applies to migration as well, as migration actually is an important mechanism of adaption to climate change (see Tacoli 2009).

Lastly, another main area of investigation has evolved around the risks posed by climate change to human security. The causal connections between climate change and human security increasingly are considered and some studies have concluded that “climate change poses risks to livelihoods, communities, and cultures” (Gemenne et al. 2014: 4; see also Barnett and Adger 2007). Human health and security can be affected directly or indirectly byvarious impacts of climate change, such as more intense natural disasters, decreasing natural resources, loss of geographical space etc. A common critique to this human security approach, however, is that it is too all-encompassing and offers little advice on realizable policy-making(Floyd 2008: 57). Floyd (2008: 58-61) identifies another, yet rather small, discussion within environmental security that focuses on environmental peacemaking or environmental cooperation and explores the possibilities of joint environmental action to foster international cooperation. The idea of environmental

peacemaking or environmental cooperation certainly provides a starting point for a counter-discourse to the securitization of climate change and might open up space for a "de-securitization‟ of the matter (Floyd 2008: 58-61).

4.2 States, Discourse and the Climate-Security Nexus

When it comes to the overall debate on climate change or the environment in general, Gemenne et al. (2014: 2) point out an important factor that hampers a constructive debate on the most critical aspects of a continuously changing climate and environment. This factor is that the debate often has been phrased in an environmentally deterministic way in which environmental issues are portrayed as the driver for various social outcomes, despite a lack of

an empirical understanding regarding the links between climate change and security (Gemenne et al. 2014: 2). The remainder of this section is organized to frame the literature in the current academic debate on climate change and security.

Another insightful and important contribution on securitization and policy advice regarding climate change comes from Brzoska (2009). Drawing on insights from the Copenhagen School, he explains that securitization can lead “to all-round "exceptionalism” in dealing with the issue” which promotes, among other things, an increased reliance on security experts, military and police (Brzoska 2009: 138). Additionally, he points to the fact that “while there is no necessary link between higher military expenditure and a lower willingness to spend on preventing and preparing for climate change, both policy areas are in competition for scarce resources” (Brzoska 2009: 138). Thus ‘the portrayal of climate change and the policies connected to it determine the overall approach of states, i.e.’ a traditional security approach versus more sustainable approaches. Furthermore, similar to Gemenne et al. (2014), Brzoska (2009: 138) contends that “the acceptance of the security consequences of climate change as an intractable problem could well reduce efforts to find peaceful solutions” to the risks and dangers associated with it.

Nevertheless, it also needs to be pointed out that not all scholars agree with this notion"securitization”. As an example, some argue that with new understandings of security, new logics and actors enter the field which in turn transform traditional

security policies, making the Copenhagen School’s notion of “securitization” a matter of the past, mainly relevant to the Cold War (Trombetta 2008: 539; see

also Brzoska 2009: 138-139). The Paris School’s idea of the climatization of the security field entails such an understanding. Instead of a mere securitization of climate change, there seems to be a reflexive relationship between the security field and climate change, meaning that certain security strategies are applied to climate change, while climate policies alter security practices (Oels 2012: 185).

Testing the securitization hypothesis, Brzoska (2009) investigates whether the portrayal of climate change as a threat necessarily leads to policy advice that relies on traditional security approaches. In order to do so, he analyses four different studies on the impacts of climate change with broad and narrow understandings of security. Despite focusing on different referent objects of security (state and individual) all four studies regard climate change “as a great, if not the greatest danger for international peace and security in the 21st century” (Brzoska 2009: 139). Yet, Brzoska (2009: 144) finds that only one of the four studies explicitly concluded that greater “military preparedness” is needed as a response to climate change in order to “combat the outbreaks of violence” and other serious effects associated with climate change. The other three studies did not give such recommendations and rather focused on multiple mitigation and adaptation strategies. One of these studies directly suggested making “cuts in military spending to free financial resources for adaptation”, while the other two “warn[ed] against falling back towards the use of traditional security policy” (Brzoska 2009: 144). However, Brzoska also acknowledges that in contrast to these studies, a “securitization” of climate change may very well be at work on the international level, as for example both NATO and the EU have prioritized climate change as a top threat to security.

Similar to Brzoska’s research, Detraz and Betsill (2009) have examined how the connections between climate change and security generally have been understood and whether there have been any major discursive shifts in public discourse. In their study, Detraz and Betsill (2009) conducted a discourse and content analysis of the UN Security Council debate on global climate change in 2007. They found that the debate mostly has been framed in a way that they call “environmental security”. Thus, most states expressed their concern about the negative security implications “of environmental degradation for human beings”, representing a human security understanding of climate change (Detraz and Betsill 2009: 2 It should be noted that this particular study was conducted by a think tank of the US Navy306). Even though 85 percent of the speakers acknowledged a link between climate change and armed conflict, they mainly did so in a broad understanding of security instead of a narrower national security understanding. Moreover, the speakers remained divided on whether the UNSC is the right forum for discussing climate change. Detraz and Betsill (2009) then compared the discourse employed at the 2007 UNSC debate to earlier debates and documents on climate change, e.g., by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). They found that the “environmental security” perspective was largely the dominant one. In comparison, relatively little evidence was found for a narrower traditional security understanding, which they cal“environmental conflict” (Detraz and Betsill 2009). According to Detraz and Betsill (2009), climate change commonly has been understood to increase human vulnerabilities and affect human security. However, they do not rule out the possibility of a future discursive shift to an “environmental conflict” understanding of climate change – a shift they would consider counterproductive. While the findings Detraz and Betsill (2009) provide detailed insight into the discourse on climate change, they do not connect discourse and practice.

In another study, Brzoska (2012) creates a clearer link between discourse and practice when analyzing the discourse on climate change in various states‟ White Papers and nationaldefense documents. Using the terms “environmental security”and “environmental conflict” from Detraz and Betsill (2009), Brzoska

(2012) also finds that the broader “environmental security”perspective represents the most common way the links between climate change and security are understood. A few states, such as USA, UK, Finland, Russia and Australia, see climate change as a potentially large or very large threat and add to the broader human security understanding also a narrower national security understanding, i.e. the “environmental conflict” perspective (Brzoska 2012). Yet, a clear majority of states do not seem to adopt such a perspective, but rather they estimate that climate change threatens the lives as well as livelihoods of individuals. Accordingly, disaster management, to ensure human security, represents the dominant focus of policy measures within the security documents. Other policies suggested by the various documents include adaptation, crisis management, conflict prevention, and in very few cases enhancing military capabilities (Brzoska 2012). Even though many of the proposed policy measures, such as disaster management and conflict prevention, make room for active involvement of the armed forces, Brzoska (2012) concludes that there are generally few suggestions for a clear role of thearmed forces in regards to climate change. Brzoska (2012) provides in-depth knowledge of national understandings of and approaches to climate change. However, an analysis of how different policy fields incorporate climate change and security remains open.

Regarding the practical approaches to climate change, Oels (2013) has found that ‘traditional risk management based on prediction’ and ‘risk management through contingency’ are the dominant risk managing approaches. The traditional risk management approach aims to “[r]educe risks to a “tolerable level” defined by science and technology” (Oels 2013: 19). This type of risk management represents the risk of climate change as knowable, calculable and controllable, while aiming to reduce possible vulnerabilities of some social groups (Oels 2013: 19). Rather than reducing risks to a “safe” level, the risk management through contingency approach aims to “[m]obilise and empower people to adapt to radical contingency”, which includes capacity building, data-mining and surveillance (Oels 2013: 19). Climate change is presented as an uncertain, hard to predict, and inevitable risk which calls for preparedness and resilience. Furthermore, Oels (2013: 21) finds that besides mitigation, which focuses on the control of

greenhouse gas emissions in order to prevent„dangerous‟ climate change levels, adaptation has become a rather dominant approach to responding to climate change. The adaptation approach aims to manage the impacts of climate change and considers certain impacts of climate change as inevitable. Oels (2013) argues that adaptation or security concerns have not replaced mitigation, but instead “adaptation and security emerge alongside mitigation” (Oels 2013: 21, emphasis in original). Based on the dominant approaches to climate change and the risk management practices, Oels (2013) concludes that there are only very few suggestions for “conflict prevention” strategies, and no evidences for securitization of climate change, at least in the way the Copenhagen School understands securitization. The links between climate change and security should rather be understoodsclimatization, evident in the policy fields of defense, migration and development.

On a more general level, various scholars have warned about the linking of theenvironment to security. Even though the securitization of the environment and climate change raises awareness and attention paid to the issue, it also can backfire. For example, Deudney (1999) claims that securitizing environmental change is in fact counterproductive to developing effective solutions for a sustainable future, and that we should abandon the security framing of environmental concerns entirely. Moreover, scholars within theenvironmental security field, especially those dealing with “ecological security”(meaning the environment is the referent object to be protected from harmful practices) warn that a traditional security approach and even our general anthropocentric view on the environment is he wrong way to deal with environmental concerns, as this type of approach tends to neglect the root causes of climate change (see Barnett 2013; Detraz 2012).

4.3-Securitization of climate change by Taylor and Francis

This book provides the first systematic comparative analysis of climate security discourses.It thus closes an empirical gap in the literature, in which securitisation studies focus either on the global level or on single-country cases and do not reconstruct detailed securitisation dynamics. The comparative framework

presented here allows conclusions to be drawn about the conditions and consequences of successful securitisation based on empirical and comparative analysis rather than theoretical debate only. The authors focus on which climate-security discourses have been dominant, which actors have been involved, which political consequences have been legitimised and what role the broader context has played in enabling the specific securitisations. By including industrialised countries (USA, Germany) and emerging economies (Mexico, Turkey) as well as climate vanguards (Germany, Mexico) and laggards (USA, Turkey), the book generates insights into how securitisation processes play out in different contexts and at the same time address the 'Western bias' in securitisation and environmental studies .

As a basis for research, the authors develop a new and systematic theoretical framework that distinguishes between different referent objects of securitisation (territorial, individual and planetary) and between a security and risk dimension. This framework clarifies and summarises the ever-increasing literature on different forms of securitisation and the relationship between security and risk. On the one hand, the book thus introduces order into a currently rather confusing debate. On the other hand, this framework allows the authors to operationalise different conceptions of securitisation and thus to trace these in the empirical studies. The book further contributes to securitisation theory by not only addressing the two different logics of security and risk, but by also re-defining and mapping the relationship between politicisation and securitisation.

This study uses actor analysis, discourse analysis of the most relevant reports on climate change and security, expert interviews, and the analysis of parliamentary debates and newspaper coverage. This systematic methodological approach enables the authors to trace securitisation processes and to come to detailed insights about how the dominant climate-security discourses have translated into concrete policies. On this basis, we can also assess these consequences from a normative perspective. In addition, the book generates insights into the conditions for success or failure of securitisation by including the role of specific actors as well as the wider context. Thus, the approach contributes to the literature on climate change as well as to critical security studies in general and encourages a more empirically and comparatively focused research agenda in both fields.

4.4--Climate Change and the Environmental Conflict Discourse

It explores how discourses about environmental conflicts have evolved and whether and how they have contributed to transforming security provisions and politics. It shows that the conceptualization of environmental security and the influence of the realist understanding of security have shaped the debate about environmental conflicts. Despite this initial framing, the debate has evolved and has contributed to bringing about a transformation of security practices in which preventive measures have gained relevance, even if traditional security narratives have reappeared, especially in the recent debate on climate change. This process is described through two dynamics: the securitization of climate change and the governmentalization of security. This chapter shows that the transformation of security practices can be conceptualized, adopting a broader understanding of securitization (see chap. 8 by Brzoska; chap. 9 by Oels; chap. 13 by Karafoulidis).

4.5-Climate change, human security and violent conflict

Jon Barnett , W. Neil Adger b

Climate change is increasingly been called a ‘security’ problem, and there has been speculation thatclimate change may increase the risk of violent conflict. This paper integrates three disparate but well founded bodies of research e on the vulnerability of local places and social groups to climate change,on livelihoods and violent conflict, and the role of the state in development and peacemaking, to offer new insights into the relationships between climate change, human security, and violent conflict. It explains that climate change increasingly undermines human security in the present day, and will increasingly do so in the future, by reducing access to, and the quality of, natural resources that are important to sustain livelihoods. Climate change is also likely to undermine the capacity of states to provide the opportunities and services that help people to sustain their livelihoods. We argue that in certain circumstances these direct and indirect impacts of climate change on human security may in turn increase the risk of violent conflict. The paper then outlines the broad contours of a research programme to guide empirical investigations into the risks climate change poses to human security and peace.

4.6-Climate change and threats to human security by Narottam GaanPublishing date-(2014-6).

The Westphalian paradigm of state as a hard shelled political and territorial boundary to impregnate all those who have been walled in as citizens with an impenetrable security shield is no longer impervious and insensitive to the volley of threats hurled at them by the emerging non-traditional and non-state sources. One of such sources of threats remaining menacing to the people is the climate change with its apocalyptic consequences not centuries ago foreseen or predictably crafted within the contours of state security and its associated military establishment. The utter inadequacy and increasing irrelevance of weapons however lethal and sophisticated may be, in the face of climate change has challenged the narrow, reductionist, linear and one directional state centric security but also has laid the building block for redefining security that moves beyond the state down to the level of every single individual that can be comprehensively christened as human security. Yet one could argue with equal plausibility that the wrong end of a smokestack can be as much of a security threat to humans as the barrel of a gun. This book compiled of a sheaf of articles written from various perspectives mostly focuses on the threats the climate change poses to human security. 

4.7- Climate Change Sustainable Development In India by Jamil Ahmed publishedin the year 2013.

Global climate change, being caused primarily by the building up of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere, is a serious environmental concern for the world community. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), concluded in its Fourth Assessment Report, released in November 2007, that the fact of global warming is unequivocal and there is enough evidence to indicate that this is due to anthropogenic reasons. Recent years have been the warmest since 1860, the year from when regular

instrumental records are available. India has always been subject to a large degree of climate variability. This is likely to be accentuated by climate change. As a part of voluntary actions to address climate change related concerns, India launched National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) on June 30, 2008. It stresses the need to maintain a high growth rate for improving living standards of the vast majority of people of India and at the same time to reduce their vulnerability to the adverse impacts of climate change. This book is an attempt to explain the impending perils of climate change and underscore the need for timely remedial measures to deal with the emerging crisis. Contents: 1. Global Climate Change: Evidence, Causes and Consequences 2. India’s Approach to Climate Change 3. Climate Change, Indian Agriculture and Food Security 4. Energy Consumption and Climate Change 5. Climate Change and Uncertainty of Water Availability 6. Air and Noise Pollution 7. Protection of India’s Biological Diversity 8. Disaster Mitigation and Management 9. Measures Taken for Environmental Protection 10. Summary and Conclusions Appendix: Twelfth Five Year Plan (2012-17) on Climate Change Bibliography Index.

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

This research work is devoted to providing basic ideas of the following:

*To explore that climate change happens to be a serious security threat to international relation.

*To focus on how climate change affects the life of the people?

*To focus on the changing security concept of the states.

*To focus on Indian foreign policy towards climate change.

HYPOTHESIS

The above narrations raise questions and perceptions of security or ‘threat’ based on this the following assumption stand

1.Climate change emerge as a non-traditional security threat.

2.The impacts of climate change on security of human beings have securitized climate change in India’s foreign policy.

3.India has taken many actions at the domestic level on climate change in veiw of the threats climate change poses to human being.

4.Since climate change is global, India has played a major role to put the burden of combating climate change on the developed countries.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The present study is based on a content analysis of materials collected from secondary sources such as books, journals Newspapers and research articles. The study is a descriptive and analytical.

SOURCES OF COLLECTION OF DATA

All the data collected here, are secondary in nature which are collected from books, journals, magazines, news papers , clips etc.

CHAPTERIZATION OF STUDY

The Research work has all together five chapters :

The Chapter 1 : Introduction: This chapter explains about the significance of the study, literature review, objectives of the study, hypothesis, research methodology and chapterization of the study.

The Chapter 2 : Environmental security a theoretical framework: This chapter explains the meaning of the concept security . The sub chapter: traditional or non-traditional security explains the evolutions of the concept of securitization of climate change with the view of two research groups, a memorandum from the council for security cooperation in the Asia Pacific (CSCAP) and centre for East Asian Studies.

The Chapter 3 : Impact of climate change in india: This chapter evaluates about the impact of climate change such as ; sea level rise, river bank erosion, coastal erosion, global warming, spread of diseases etc.

The Chapter 4 : Indian foreign policy on climate change : This chapter talks about the policy of india towards climate change negotiations like Kyoto protocol, Copenhagen summit, the Cancun agreement, The Durban agreement etc.

The Chapter 5: India’s position in the Climate change negotiations: This chapter deals with the facts and figures of all the countries in the climate change negotiations but special attention to India.

The Chapter 6: Conclusion: In the concluding chapter has been analyzed how far India has been able to combat climate change having asunder into the centre step of India’s foreign policy at both domestic and international level. It also include some remedial measures to be given priority by India in dealing with the threat posed by climate change.