‘Hambi bleibt!’ - Securitizing the Environment

A case study of discursive threat-construction surrounding the Hambach Forest

LISA BECKER

Peace and Conflict Studies Bachelor’s degree Spring 2019 Supervisor: John Åberg Word count: 14070

ABSTRACT Although issues linked to global environmental change and its role within peace, conflict and security have been subject to social and political controversy for years, they are still not sufficiently respected by energy companies, trade unions, national governments and international institutions alike. Through applying the tools of a single instrumental case study linked to the application of discourse analysis I, this study explores the process of securitization of the environment in the extraordinary case of the resistance and occupation surrounding the Hambach Forest, thereby countering the widely held assumption that collective action aimed at radically changing existing structures is not possible. The particular exploratory focus is put on the way this non-conventional environmental security discourse has been created within a redefined securitization framework. By challenging the traditional focus of securitization theory on top-down construction through elites, this study provides a broadened, bottom-up account of environmental securitization stemming from local civil society actors as non- powerholders that effectively proclaim their recognition of the environment’s intrinsic value from a grassroots level. Consequently, it argues for the significance of securitization as creative process of alerting policy makers, political leaders and the broader society to the emergency of climate change and global environmental degradation symbolized through the specific case of Hambach Forest.

Key words: securitization, environment, civil society actors, Hambach Forest, bottom-up approach, discourse analysis

- 2 - Table of Contents LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...... - 5 - LIST OF FIGURES ...... - 5 - 1. Introduction ...... - 6 - 1.1. Research Problem ...... - 6 - 1.2. Research Aim and Research Question(s) ...... - 7 - 1.3. Relevance for the Field of Peace and Conflict Studies ...... - 9 - 1.1. (De)Limitations ...... - 10 - 1.2. Disposition ...... - 10 - 2. Background ...... - 12 - 2.1. The Role of the Hambach Forest within the Climate Justice Movement ...... - 12 - 2.2. The Hambach Forest ...... - 13 - 3. Previous Research ...... - 16 - 3.1. The Concept of ‘Security’ ...... - 16 - 3.2. The Shift from National Security to Human Security and the Consequences for the Environment ...... - 17 - 3.3. Securitizing the Environment ...... - 19 - 4. Analytical Framework ...... - 22 - 4.1. The Copenhagen School’s Theory of Securitization ...... - 22 - 4.2. Challenging CS Within the Context of This Study ...... - 24 - 4.3. A Broadened Framework for Analysis ...... - 26 - 5. Methodological Framework ...... - 29 - 5.1. Research Design ...... - 29 - 5.2. Method ...... - 30 - 5.3. Material ...... - 33 - 5.4. Reflection on the Linkage between Research Design and Method within the Analytical Framework of Securitization ...... - 35 - 5.5. Researcher’s Own Positioning ...... - 36 - 6. Analysis ...... - 38 - 6.1. Analysis Part I – Themes, expressions, visual representations ...... - 38 - 6.2. Analysis Part II – Analyzing the Discourses in Light of the Broadened Securitization Framework ...... - 42 - 7. Conclusion ...... - 47 - 7.1. Concluding Remarks and Answering the Research Question ...... - 47 - 7.2. Further research ...... - 48 - - 3 - 8. Reference list ...... - 50 -

- 4 - LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CS Copenhagen School HAMBI The Hambach Forest EU European Union PACS Peace and Conflict Studies RWE Rhenish-Westphalian Power Plant UN United Nations Organization UNDP United Nations Development Program

LIST OF FIGURES

Cover Page Occupation of the Hambach Forest Figure 1: Road barricades erected by environmental activists - 15 - Figure 2: Hambach Forest vs. Hambach Surface Mine - 44 -

- 5 - 1. Introduction

“Because, underneath all of this is the real truth we have been avoiding: climate change isn’t an “issue” to add to the list of things to worry about, next to health care and taxes. It is a civilizational wake-up call. A powerful message—spoken in the language of fires, floods, droughts, and extinctions—telling us that we need an entirely new economic model and a new way of sharing this planet. Telling us that we need to evolve.” – Naomi Klein

Voices like this, articulating the need to radically and immediately address the growing emissions of greenhouse gases leading to global warming, loss of biodiversity and severe disruptions of ecosystems are becoming increasingly pressing. All human societies are depending on a functioning climate system due to the countless interconnections between people (social systems), animals and plants (natural systems) as well as livelihood opportunities (economic systems) worldwide. Since the basic structure of the planet’s climate system is being altered by mankind in unprecedented pace and scale, the functioning of healthy ecosystems is increasingly being threatened, leading to irreversible consequences if left unchecked (Mathews, 1989:163-169; Gemenne et al., 2014:7).

Although issues linked to global environmental change and its role within peace, conflict and security have been subject to social and political controversy for years, they are still not sufficiently respected by energy companies, trade unions, national governments and international institutions alike. Considering the widely held assumption that ‘individual and collective action to radically transform existing systems and structures is not possible’ (O’Brien, Barnett, 2013:284-385), the problem becomes whether structures and systems contributing to the tremendous changes will be changed voluntarily or if ‘structural change will be enforced violently and randomly by environmental crisis’ (Buzan et al., 1998:595).

1.1. Research Problem

Recent years have produced a significant body of research, demonstrating that global environmental change will have dramatic impacts on social systems and pose a fundamental threat to human security (Barnett, Adger, 2007:640; O’Brien, Barnett, 2013:379). While climate change might not compose an immediate threat to national security at present (Gemenne et al., 2014:7), the UN aims at avoiding ‘dangerous’ interference in the climate system, thereby defining environmental degradation and climate change as a significant risk to security (Barnett, Adger,2007:640). However, an ‘oversimplified representation of security concerns linked to

- 6 - global environmental change can lead to counterproductive [mitigation and adaptation] policy responses’, which often ignore the problems’ root causes (O’Brien, Barnett,2013:379).

Thus, a new perspective of global environmental change and security beyond the understanding of environmental security as protecting ‘the maintenance of achieved levels of civilization’ from environmental threats, is needed (Buzan et al., 1998:76). Instead, it must change towards the recognition of the environment’s own inherent value (Khagram et al., 2003:296). Considering environmental degradation through the lens of non-traditional notions of security has constructed a new discourse in security studies, thereby powerfully affecting the relationship between state, society and nature (Hayes, Know-Hayes,2014:82). By reframing events that had traditionally been considered as natural disasters into matters of growing climate instability, elites delineate global environmental change as a burning, existential threat demanding immediate action. Through these politics of constructing threat agendas, various politicians and policy makers have actively contributed to environmental securitization through ‘typical’ top-down securitization moves (Trombetta, 2008:594; Williams, 2013:9).

However, ‘environmental issues […] provide an entry point for individuals and communities to participate in decisions about their own security and development’ (Jancar, 1993; quoted in Khagram et al., 2003:295). In this regard, the resistance and occupation surrounding the Hambach Forest has emerged as an extraordinary European case. It goes beyond traditional strategies (legal protests, petitions, public campaigns) of the environmental movement and towards a bottom-up, local civil society account of non-traditional securitization as a way of articulating their demands. Therefore, it becomes necessary to investigate how this non- conventional environmental security discourse has been created, providing space for marginalized parts of society to effectively proclaim their recognition of the environment’s intrinsic value from a grassroots level.

1.2. Research Aim and Research Question(s)

By applying the tools of a single instrumental case study as comprehensive research strategy, the following thesis aims at unpacking the process of securitization of the environment in the specific case of the resistance and occupation surrounding the Hambach Forest as meaningful symbol of resistance, climate justice and environmental security. The particular exploratory focus is put on the way the environment has been constructed as a security issue by environmental activists, and the social and political mechanisms underlying this phenomenon. The purpose of the study is threefold:

- 7 - Firstly, investigating the discourses underlying the use of speech acts, images and audiovisual material as strategy of security construction to justify extraordinary actions and provoking social and political change.

Secondly, challenging the traditional focus of securitization theory on top-down construction through elites and instead providing a broadened, bottom-up account of environmental securitization.

And thirdly, providing an example of an unusual, but powerful form of securitization stemming from local civil society actors as non-powerholders gaining widespread attention and support from within the global fight for environmental justice and climate action.

To attain this goal, the present thesis will be organized around the following research question:

How is the environment securitized by the environmental activists participating in the occupation and resistance aimed at protecting the Hambach Forest?

The following operational questions will organize and structure the research and answer the main question:

1. Which reoccurring themes, expressions and visual representations can be found in the chosen material concerned with the occupation and resistance surrounding the Hambach Forest? 2. What are the underlying discourses reflected in this material? 3. What are the defining features of the threat-construction (existential threat/referent subject) and who/what is portrayed as being threatened (referent object)? 4. How do the environmental activists (securitizing actors) portray the occupation and resistance (extraordinary measures) to protect the Hambach Forest? 5. How do they articulate the necessity of their actions and in what way are they presenting them as legitimate to the German population (audience)?

A variety of textual, visual and audiovisual material will be presented and analyzed through the theoretical lenses of securitization and environmental security, making use of discourse analysis I as accounted for by Rose (2001). Since the general aim of discourse analysis is to identify and investigate the social consequences of discourse(s), it is vital to conduct a detailed analysis of the chosen material from various angles in order to provide an insight into the different measures and rhetoric used by the activists.

- 8 - 1.3. Relevance for the Field of Peace and Conflict Studies

For demonstrating the importance of environmental issues for the academic field of Peace and Conflict Studies and thus the relevance of this study, the following arguments are of major significance:

The importance of ‘security’ as one of the major concepts within PACS

Due to this study’s focus on the securitization of the environment, this research fits perfectly within the tradition of Peace and Conflict Studies as interrelating with the field of security studies (Rogers, 2016:58ff.). The relevance of the dynamics of securitizing discourses surrounding environmental issues lies within securitization theory itself, especially due to its ‘power’ of enabling extraordinary measures. As argued by Ratner, the provisioning of ecosystem goods and services (such as access to clean water, food, climate regulation or soil formation) fundamentally underpins human well-being and, more importantly, human security (2018:6). The degradation of these services, thus, can significantly harm human livelihood, which makes the link between environmental resources and human security particularly clear.

Relationship between Global Environmental Change, Conflict and Peace

As stated by Vandana Shiva, ‘wars against the earth become wars against people’, while the ‘sustainable use of resources is the way towards peace and justice’ (2009:1). I argue that the importance of studying PACS is not limited to studying human relations in times of peace and conflict, but to be seen within a wider framework including the human connection with the environment based on the notion that the well-being of all human beings is only possible in connection with the well-being of their environment (Die, 2009:44). As explained by Homer- Dixon (1994), global environmental change can have huge effects on various types of conflict ranging from diplomatic or trade disputes to war and terrorism. Even if environmental degradation might not directly lead to violence, ecological decline, resource competition or inequitable distribution can function as ‘risk multipliers’, also in otherwise friendly countries. Therefore, environmental degradation, over-use, and exploitation can be understood as a ‘cause of human insecurity and can aggravate other sources of social division based on ethnicity, class, religion, or economic position’ (Ratner, 2018:2-3; Græger, 1996:110). If these issues are not addressed, the chances are high that they will increase the potential for domestic unrest or even civil war while hindering the development of cooperative solutions towards peace (Mathews, 1989:167-168). Importantly, most countries expected to be worst impacted by climate change and environmental degradation are also most affected by violence and conflict, meaning that a - 9 - disproportionate burden of environmental harms is carried by poor, often ethnic-minority communities in the periphery – concerns that are clearly related to the field of peace and conflict studies (Kostic, Krampe, Swain,2012:59).

Focus on Civil Society Actors as Agents of Power and Resistance within National and International Contexts

What makes this study further relevant for the academic field of PACS is its explicit focus on (local) civil society actors as agents of bottom-up approaches to social and political change, following Kaldor’s understanding of civil society as ‘the medium through which social contracts or bargains between the individual and the centers of political and economic power are negotiated, discussed and mediated’ (Kaldor, 2003:12). By leaning onto Lederach’s approach of bottom-up peacebuilding, the present study suggests the need to move beyond a sole focus on traditional top-level leaders as those responsible for transformation and development within society. Instead, I argue for a holistic and integrated approach characterized by multiple levels of actors, thereby highlighting the power and possibilities of non-traditional, non-state actors to generate social and political change through various acts of resistance, social mobilization or civil disobedience.

1.1. (De)Limitations

This study is limited in various ways. By focusing on the specific case of the Hambach Forest, generalizability is limited. The research design linked to a form of Foucauldian discourse analysis precludes other approaches such as content analysis or narrative analysis to analyze the construction of securitization. The material is limited to only 9 different sources considered as relevant to illustrate the chosen case. Concerning the analytical framework, this study focuses only on the way the environment has been securitized by the environmental activists and does not address questions asking under which circumstances this process has been possible or whether it has actually triggered political change.

1.2. Disposition

This study is organized into seven chapters. Following the introductory chapter, the next chapter offers a comprehensive background. After presenting the relevant academic literature in the third chapter, Chapter 4 is discussing the analytical framework of this study. The methodological framework is reflected on in the fifth chapter, while Chapter six is dedicated towards the analysis conducted in two parts. The final seventh chapter provides the conclusion

- 10 - based on an in-depth discussion of the material within the context of the broadened framework of securitization.

- 11 - 2. Background

The following chapter provides a brief history of the Hambach Forest, with a particular focus on the current occupation, and its role in the Climate Justice Movement in Germany. The role of both domestic factors and social circumstances in climate and environment related issues is taken into consideration.

2.1. The Role of the Hambach Forest within the Climate Justice Movement

The contemporary climate justice movement in Germany emerged after the 2007 G8 summit in Heiligendamm. Its point of departure is the activists’ criticism of Chancellor Merkel’s government, which had succeeded in renewing the eroding legitimacy of the G8 meetings by presenting themselves as climate saviors, although the summit only offered general and non- binding statements on international climate protection (Passadakis, Müller,2007; quoted in Sander, 2017:27). With the purpose of developing an independent, capitalist-critical position within the climate question as well as identifying starting points for directly addressing the main causes of global warming, several activist groups established a grassroots climate network (AntiRacism Office Bremen 2007; quoted in Sander, 2017:27).

Since 2008, one can speak of an independent climate justice movement in Germany, identifying itself as a movement oriented towards averting the socio-ecological dangers of climate change and promoting a climate-friendly society. The movement has always had a central network in which it exchanges ideas and agrees on common strategies - a process embedded in the formation of a new transnational global climate justice movement (Brunnengräber, 2013; Garrelts, Dietz, 2013; Dietz, 2013; quoted in Sander, 2017:27,28).

The disappointing results of the summit protests at the UN Climate Change Conference in 2009 plunged the German climate justice movement into crisis. A number of groups turned to other issues or dissolved completely. The remaining and new activists refused to work further on climate summit diplomacy, but instead proposed to address local and regional issues of climate justice for which they could develop politically effective, concrete alternatives (Climate!Movement Network, 2010; quoted in Sander, 2017:28).

During this time, two different approaches to climate justice emerged within the movement. The “social-ecological” arm focused primarily on the implementation of concrete projects that combine social and ecological justice to promote a climate-friendly society. The ”global- ecological” arm, on the other hand, puts its focus on the rapid and massive reduction of

- 12 - greenhouse gas emissions in the Global North. Groups such as AusCO2hlt primarily address fossilized capitalism and the so-called “carbon majors” (industrial and energy companies with high CO2 emissions such as RWE). The frame of this new movement is the concept of climate justice, which implies that a radical change in the socially and ecologically unjustly organized world has to occur (della Porta, Parks, 2013; quoted in Sander, 2017:27-28). Soon, the globally- ecologically oriented groups targeted the lignite industry in Germany, demanding rapid withdrawal from coal mining (ibid:26-29). It is within this relatively new movement that I locate the resistance and occupation surrounding the Hambach Forest.

The various forms of protest in the Hambach Forest under the slogan “Hambi bleibt!” (Hambi remains) are not merely directed against the clearing of the forest, but also towards challenging the state and the capitalist system in the form of police and RWE and their use of fossil fuels (Schink, 2019:77). By now, the forest developed into a symbol of the anti-capitalist climate justice and anti-brown coal movement, which since 2009 has moved "away from international politics and towards local struggles and climate protection from below" (Bosse, 2015:395; quoted in Pfeifer et al., 2017:1)

2.2. The Hambach Forest

An Ancient Forest

The Hambach Forest (German: Hambacher Wald/Forst) is an ancient forest located between Cologne and Aachen in North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW). Its history dating back around 12.000 years ago, it is counted as one of the last remaining primeval forests in Central Europe. Recognized for its unique ecosystem and rich biodiversity, the Hambach Forest offers a habitat to a multitude of species important for conservation - including 100 bird species and 300 years old hornbeam and oak trees (Hambi bleibt!, 2018). Consequently, the Hambach Forest meets all criteria to be protected separately under the EU ecological network "Natura 2000", due to its wealth of rare and endangered animal and plant species (Oei et al.,2018:36). Not only climate protection reasons, but also the aim to conserve natural habitats, speak against a deforestation of the forest (ibid.)

Though, underneath the Hambach Forest lies a wealth of lignite – an extremely carbon-heavy fossil fuel so far presenting an important pillar of electricity generation in Germany. Today, only 10 percent of its original 13,590 acres remain and the lasting part of the Hambach Forest “sits in the crosshairs of coal mining, stirring debate about conservation and energy production” (Donahue, 2018) - 13 - The Hambach Surface Mine and the Role of RWE

Between 1967 and 1971, the surrounding municipalities and private owners gradually sold their pieces of woodland to the former Rheinbraun AG (which later became part of RWE, Germany’s leading electricity provider), thus waiving all rights of use of the properties of the Hambach Forest. In 1976, the area became part of the Rhenish Lignite Mining Area, the biggest mining area in Europe, with opencast mining starting in September 1978. At that time, the lignite was given a higher value than ecosystem protection. At this point, neither the effects of coal combustion on climate change were as clear as today, nor could alternative power generation guarantee energy security in Germany. As the mining progressed, the Hambach Forest has been cleared progressively for the expansion of the Hambach mine (Brock, Dunlap, 2018:33).

Today, in light of the coal phase-out plans in Germany, the use of the remaining parts of the Hambach Forest is no longer necessary for energy security in Germany, which RWE denies, however (Oei et al., 2018:36).

The Permanently Occupied Forest – An Ongoing Resistance

Since April 2012, the Hambach Forest has been a political platform for environmental, anti- capitalist and eco-anarchist activists as part of the anti-coal resistance directed against environmental destruction and towards the imminent phasing out of coal. What is left of the forest has been more or less continuously occupied by forest defenders opposing deforestation by RWE (Brock, Dunlap, 2018:33). Although there have been protests against the Hambach open-cast mine before, it was not until 2012 that the conflict between opponents of lignite mining and RWE has intensified and the permanent occupation began (Schneider, 2018). After protesters were repeatedly removed by police forces , the forest has been reoccupied shortly thereafter (Brock, Dunlap, 2018:33-34). In 2014, the current occupation started, involving a settlement with around two dozen tree houses and platforms, numerous road barricades and around 150 people currently living in the forest. While there have been initiatives to prevent further deforestation, in 2016/2017, the Higher Administrative Court of Münster ruled the occupation of the forest as illegal, while RWE secured the right to mine coal until 2040.

Only in 2018 has the controversy around the Hambach Forest attracted nation-wide attention and massive media coverage (Schneider, 2018; Schink, 2019:77,78). In September, the state government decided to evacuate the tree houses based on an alleged lack of safety regulations. Importantly, the state government rejected any connection with the planned deforestations from October onwards (Dalkowski, 2018).

- 14 - When the evacuation was almost complete, after several weeks of police operations, resistance and both violent and non-violent confrontation between activists and the police, a court ruling gave the protest movement new motivation (Schneider, 2018). On 5 October 2018, the Higher Administrative Court of Münster grants an emergency application of the environmental association BUND, imposing a temporary stop to deforestation (Oei et al., 2019:13). The following day, a large-scale demonstration takes place with more than 50.000 participants, giving the protest an increased nationwide status (Schink, 2019:77).

The Administrative Court in Cologne will now have to decide whether the Hambach Forest may be further cleared by RWE, or the protection of the forest as a habitat for flora and fauna has priority. Until a legally binding decision has been made, the forest must not be cleared, which will probably take until 2020. Meanwhile, the protest against coal-fired power plants such as the conflict with RWE is entering a new round, with environmental activists already starting to erect new tree houses and barricades in the forest (Schneider, 2018). At least for now, “Hambi bleibt!” (Hambi remains).

Figure 1: Road barricades erected by environmental activists (Source: Hambi bleibt!, 2018)

- 15 - 3. Previous Research

In order to adequately grasp the implications of this study, several areas of research are important. Hence, the aim of the following chapter is three-fold. While the first section offers a basic overview of previously existing notions of the concept of ‘security’, the second section outlines the shift from national to human security and its consequences for the environment. Thirdly, a general overview of selected literature touching upon the relationship between the environment and security will be provided. It then leads directly into the analytical framework of securitization and its evaluation outlined in the next chapter.

3.1. The Concept of ‘Security’

‘Before one can start working on the impact of a particular object of study, one must first understand the very nature of this object’ (Leboeuf, Broughton, 2008:3).

Williams argues that there exist many different ways to think about security, leading to different understandings of which issues should be classified as such (2013:1-2; see also Bilgin, 2013, Græger, 1996). According to him, security is an essentially contested concept, meaning its meaning is ambiguous by definition (ibid.:2). Following from that, debates concerning security issues cannot be resolved definitely, resulting in some positions becoming dominant and enforced over others through the application of power. However, he portrays security as mostly associated with ‘the alleviation of threats to cherished values; especially those which, if left unchecked, threaten the survival of a particular referent object in the near future’ (ibid.:6), which functions as the working definition applied for the present study in order to inform following practices. Furthermore, Buzan sees security as ‘a powerful political tool in claiming attention for priority items in the competition for government attention’ (1991:370; quoted in Williams, 2013:2), claiming that decision-making authority over the meaning and subjects of security and how security can be achieved play a crucial role (ibid.:2,6). Accordingly, security studies should better be seen as ‘an area of inquiry revolving loosely around [this] set of core questions’ (ibid.:5), whereby perceptions of the future as well competing approaches towards achieving security are the main ground for opposition (ibid.:1-2).

In line with Williams, Baldwin adds that one can ‘differentiate between better and worse conceptualizations’ of security (1997:10). Hence, Baldwin criticizes much of the existing literature on security for lacking a clear and precise formulation of one’s own conception of security (ibid.:12).

- 16 - Following Ullman’s appeal to include events such as floods and other environmental matters into the understanding of security issues, Baldwin argues for a revised focus on the preservation of acquired values instead of the presence or absence of ‘threats’, an expanded understanding this study adopts (1997:13). It follows that Baldwin also puts a specific emphasis on the questions ‘security for whom?’, ‘security for which values?’ as well as ‘by what means?’ (ibid.), thus highlighting the importance to specify security with respect to the actors whose values are to be secured, the referent object and the acquired values as precisely as possible. Importantly, the choice regarding the question ‘security for whom’ (referent object) is situational , including obvious answers such as ‘the state’, ‘the individual’ or ‘the international system’ while not excluding exceptional answers such as ‘the environment’. Also, the decision to define these dimensions in either very broad or very narrow terms lies with the researcher (ibid.:17).

Moreover, Baldwin criticizes the primary focus on military solutions for pursuing security , arguing for alternative approaches towards security problems (ibid.:16), which again becomes particularly relevant for the study at hand. In that way, Baldwin emphasizes the multidimensionality of the security concept (ibid.:23). Multidimensionality means that ‘new’ forms of security such as economic, social, identity and environmental security can be discussed on higher or lower levels without changing the main characteristics of the phenomenon, a finding already described by Wolfers (1962) before (ibid.).

3.2. The Shift from National Security to Human Security and the Consequences for the Environment

Before the Cold War, the traditional notion of security endorsed political realism and was concerned with ‘the four ‘S’s of states, strategy, science and the status quo’ (Williams, 2013:3). This means that nation states as the central referents and agents of security in international politics were the only focus of security studies aimed at preserving the status quo. Subsequently, the academic field of security studies has been narrowly defined as ‘the study of the threat, use, and control of military force’ (Walt, 1991:212; quoted in Balzacq, Léonard and Ruzicka, 2015:496) relating only to armed conflict. Thereby, a hierarchy of threats was created that separated between ‘high’ politics (such as military forces) as being legitimately included in the security agendas and ‘low’ politics (such as environmental problems) (Trombetta,2008:587).

Since the early 1990s, this position has increasingly been criticized as insufficient to account for new, globally emerging threats (Williams, 2013:8; Dalby, 2013:312). This opened the ‘intellectual space’ for a renewed security discourse apart from state-centric security, shifting

- 17 - towards totally new dimensions (five major sectors: military, political, economic, societal and environmental security) - a development spurred specifically by social movements, activists and intellectuals (Bilgin, 2013:93). According to Mathews, one major reason for that was the blurring of the divide between foreign and domestic, breaking down ‘the sacred boundaries of national sovereignty’ (1989:162). In theoretical terms, a key development occurred in 1983 with the publication of ‘People, States and Fear’ by Barry Buzan. This book fundamentally broadened the framework of security beyond the sole focus on violent conflict as threatening national security and towards the inclusion of all human collectivities into the security agenda, contributing to the development of a human security discourse (William, 2008:4).

As stated by Khagram et al., especially shifting the focus on what/ who is to be secured as well as the expansion of what is understood as security are key elements within the transformation from state-centered security towards human security (2003:291-292). Following Khagram et al., O’Brien and Barnett explain how policies and decisions relating to peace, conflict, development or the environment are increasingly being framed in relation to human security, a valuable lens for understanding social aspects of global environmental changes since the late 1990s (2013:374). Within this context, environmental change is being framed as a ‘social problem with environmental dimensions’ as opposed to an abstract scientific problem (ibid.). This highlight ‘how political, [cultural and] economic processes drive environmental degradation and influence people’s exposure to it’ (ibid.:377). From this viewpoint, global environmental change is considered a political process raising important issues of equity/equality, justice, and ethics linked to history events such as colonization and war in larger sociopolitical contexts (Barnett, Adger, 2007:642).

Rita Floyd added that a fundamental function of human security is that it enables environmental issues to be raised above ordinary policy matters and into the agenda of global security concerns, thereby pulling together multiple perspectives and voices (2010; quoted in O’Brien, Barnett, 2013:375-376).

In conclusion, many scholars have argued that understanding global environmental change as a matter of human security presents the best possibility to approach environmental issues by moving the security concept away from state and military measures and towards a wider understanding based on experiences, values and everyday lives (O’Brien, Barnett, 2013:381). Within this human security framework, humans are agents of change actively contributing to global environmental change through their occupation and use of the natural environment. Accordingly, agency becomes central to the human security approach concerned with root - 18 - causes of environmental change and human insecurity but also human responsibility for its solutions (ibid.:382-384).

Despite the importance of developing a human security discourse for the recognition of the environment as a security matter, Barnett and Adger criticize that one cannot separate human security and therefore the environment from the operation of the state, since states are critical in providing opportunities for people to pursue their, while simultaneously contributing to a stable environment (2007:642-646).

3.3. Securitizing the Environment

With the appearance of threats of unprecedented scale (such as global warming), the need to redefine security and first attempts to securitize the environment have emerged around the 1990s. Since then, linkages between environmental degradation and human security have been the object of much research in recent decades, while only lately becoming a focus in international environmental policy.

Balzacq, Léonard and Ruzicka (2015:496) identify a reason for securitization’s fascination with the environmental sector in the way it challenges the theory in several regards, an acknowledgement already made by Buzan et al. However, Buzan et al. claim that most attempts to securitize the environment will result in ‘normal’ politicization since threats are too distant for securitization resulting in the deployment of exceptional measures (1998:82-82). This highlights a paradox: while securitizing actors may often try to construct a threat to ensure the survival of a referent object, for securing humanity from environmental threats much of human society would need to be transformed radically or even demolished (Balzacq, Guzzini, 2015:511).

Concerning needs for radical change, Mathews links security to the environment through the importance of economic growth to grant human security, however stating that contemporary growth contains too resource-intensive practices (1989:162). Consequently, he emphasizes the necessity to change the means of production drastically in order for planet earth to accommodate a growing population (ibid.:164).

Similarly, Dalby argues that any discussion on security and the environment demands a clear analysis of the way human actions change all aspects of life on the planet, transforming the world into an ‘artificial place’ in which climate change will increase the insecurity of people and states in the coming years (2013:312-313).

- 19 - Adding another element, Hayes and Know-Hayes highlight the important role of media in increasing the value placed on climate change and other environmental issues within the security framework (2014:95).

According to Trombetta, the first formulation of the concept of ‘environmental security’ appeared in the UNDP 1994 annual report, identified as a relevant component of human security, thereby broadening the security agenda and implying new roles for security actors as well as different means for providing security (2008:585,594). In line with this, Ratner’s understanding of the term as ‘a foundation of human security more broadly’ essential to sustainable livelihoods’ links global environmental benefits to more immediate concerns such as employment, social stability or effective governance. Additionally, he adds the role of ecological processes and natural resources as catalysts for conflict and as a means to resolve insecurity (2018:2-5).

Here, Gemenne et al. criticize that the focus of research on climate change and security has been mostly on the causes of conflict, ignoring the factors of peace and cooperation in understanding the climate-security nexus (2014:6). According to Kostic, Krampe and Swain, who understand environmental security as freedom from environmental dangers, one needs to distinguish between environmental conflict, as state-centered, traditional ‘hard’ security concerns, and environmental security, as ‘the broad human security aspect and thus [laying] beyond state borders’ (2012:46).

Consequently, a focus on national security and military agencies might not be the accurate framework in which to consider environmental matters (Dalby, 2013:322). Similarly, Mason and Zeiton (2013:294) criticize the securitization of environmental processes for creating apocalyptical visions that are then used to justify urgent, even emergency measures by the state to prevent or diminish serious dangers to protect core institutions (see also Gemenne et al., 2014:2). This reflects the Realist perspective that problematizes linking ‘security’ with the environment, referring to the concern that traditional means of securitization are inapplicable to environmental degradation or climate change without militarizing it (Trombetta, 2008:587).

Another concern is that the integration of the environment into the conception of security might be problematic ‘as it allows for a quasi-limitless enlargement of the field of security studies to every issue that can affect individuals and their quality of life’ (Leboeuf, Broughton, 2008:7).

However, while there exist various understandings of the threat of environmental change and its potential inclusion into the international security agenda within academic literature, for the

- 20 - most part they agree that environmental concerns are global, therefore requiring a shared responsibility of actors on international level (O’Brien, Barnett, 2013:376).

- 21 - 4. Analytical Framework

The following chapter provides the theoretical foundation for the present research building up directly on the pervious section. Firstly, the Copenhagen School’s theory of securitization is discussed as analytical lens to understand and interpret the discourses surrounding the resistance and occupation of the Hambach Forest. Secondly, this theoretical model is evaluated and challenged in relation to environmental securitization. Consequently, a broadened analytical framework will be provided, which will guide and structure the analysis.

4.1. The Copenhagen School’s Theory of Securitization

The theoretical conceptualization on which the present study is built derives from the Copenhagen School, an academic school of thought originating from Barry Buzan’s book ‘People, States and Fear: The National Security Problem in International Relations’ published in 1983. In the 1990s, a series of collaborative work emerged, concerned with security in world politics, concluding in the 1998 text ‘Security: A New Framework for Analysis’, co-authored by Barry Buzan, Ole Wæver and Jaap de Wilde (McDonald, 2008:71-72). This work attempted to address the demands for a broadened concept of security beyond the military, which materialized after the Cold War to include newly arisen concerns into the international security agenda (ibid.:72). For widening traditional materialist security studies towards these new fields, a significant role is played by the concepts of ‘sectors’(military/state, political, economic, societal, environmental) entailing specific types of security interactions , and ‘regional security complexes’, meaning interlinked sets of units of security processes and dynamics within a particular geographical area that need to be considered together (Buzan et al., 1998:7-8). Regarding the environment as security issue, the concept of regional security complex must be reconsidered due to the environment’s all-embracing importance for any geographical location around the world, admittedly in varying degrees.

The school’s most prominent achievement was a new conceptual framework for analysis. It is pointing to the discursive construction of particular concerns as security threats (Buzan et al., 1998:24-27), focusing on how security is given meaning and the political effects stemming from these security constructions (McDonald, 2008:68,72). This concept of ‘securitization’, developed within the tradition of social constructivism, suggests that ‘there are no objective threats, waiting to be discovered’ (Trombetta, 2008:587,588), claiming instead that threats are socially created within an intersubjective process taking shape as retrospective constructions (Tilly, 2001:36; quoted in Robinson, 2017:508). Consequently, the understanding of - 22 - securitization as social process, through which any issue, dynamic or actor is presented as an existential threat to a particular referent object, requiring emergency measures and justifying actions outside the normal bounds of political procedures, derived (Buzan et al, 1998:23-24). Thereby, the Copenhagen School strictly divides between ‘politicization’ or ‘normal politics’ defined by liberal democracy, the rule of law and open political deliberation; and exceptional ‘security practices’, defined by a certain urgency leading to political prioritization (Williams, 2015:117; McDonald, 2008:74). Accordingly, in theory, any public issue can potentially be located anywhere on the spectrum of non-politized, politicized and possibly securitized if a political community constructs them as such through a successful speech act altering the way of dealing with them (Trombetta, 2008:588). To avoid the ‘everything becomes security’ trap, however, the need arrived to develop some kind of fixed form which still leaves the possibility to ‘throw the net across all sectors and all actors’ (Wæver, 2011:469). Balzacq, Léonard and Ruzicka have clarified their understanding by stating that:

‘the core concepts of the theory are arguably the securitizing actor (i.e. the agent who presents an issue as a threat through a securitizing move), the referent subject (i.e. the entity that is threatening), the referent object (i.e. the entity that is threatened), the audience (the agreement of which is necessary to confer an intersubjective status to the threat), the context and the adoption of distinctive policies (‘exceptional’ or not)’ (2015:49).

- which I consider the working definition of the present study. Taken together, the ‘mainstream’ securitization process thus includes five main components: 1. securitizing actor/agent, 2. existential threat/referent, 3. referent object, 4. audience and 5. the application of extraordinary measures presented as solution within the given context.

The securitizing move describes the attempt of an actor with socio-political credibility to construct an issue/actor as existential threat to a particular group or shared value through the articulation of a successful ‘speech act’ (Hayes, Know-Hayes, 2014:84), defined by the CS as ‘a combination of language and society, of both intrinsic features of speech and the group that authorizes and recognizes that speech’ (Buzan et al., 1998:32). Buzan et al. (1998:31-33) define three “facilitating conditions” for a successful security speech act:

1. Internal condition: the form of the speech act following the ‘grammar’ of the security (‘a point of no return’ followed by ‘a possible way out’) 2. Social condition: the social position of the securitizing actor 3. Historical condition: the conditions historically associated with the specific threat

- 23 - Successful securitization tends to articulate threat through the language of security ‘only from a specific place, in an institutional voice, by elites’ (Wæver, 1995:57), meaning that state- representatives are the primary driving force behind this development. Thus, security can be understood as negotiation between speakers and audiences, conditioned by the speaker’s level of authority within a community (McDonald, 2013:72).

Consequently, whether ‘saying security’ becomes successful does not depend on objective features, but rather on the interaction between the securitizing actor and audience, meaning that an audience must accept securitization and thus consent to exceptional procedures to protect shared values (Balzacq, Léonard and Ruzicka, 2015:496,499). Although there can be a ‘multiplicity of audiences’, it is crucial to identify the ‘enabling audience’ that ultimately empowers the securitizing actor to act (Balzacq, Léonard and Ruzicka, 2015:500).

The next step is to clarify ‘whose security we are talking about’, since any discussion about security becomes meaningless without a referent object (Williams, 2013:7). Survival, urgency and emergency lead to ‘the breaking of otherwise blinding rules and governance by decrees rather than by democratic decisions’ through ‘extraordinary measures’, i.e. whatever means are deemed appropriate the curb the threat (Trombetta, 2008:588).

As stated by Wæver, securitization becomes attractive for various actors through the causal mechanism between ‘doing security’ and it’s social and political effects, making securitization an exceptional change of state within a social system structured by power relations among stakeholders (2011:476). Consequently, securitization has become a ‘powerful political tool in claiming attention for priority items in the competition for government attention’ (Buzan, 1991:370)

4.2. Challenging CS Within the Context of This Study

Securitization has become a fruitful analytical approach to study the growing number of various security issues (Balzacq, Léonard and Ruzicka, 2015:507). Applying the Copenhagen School’s theory of securitization, ‘subtle differences in emphasis and scope of the conceptual framework are evident even among its chief architects’ (McDonald, 2008:567). Most empirical accounts reflect upon particular empirical material and specific components of securitization theory, rather than simply applying existing concepts. These works further refine existing understandings of the theory, contributing to and criticizing its development (Balzacq, Léonard and Ruzicka, 2015:508). Here, only critique relevant to this study is outlined, while acknowledging that the CS’s securitization framework has previously been challenged, e.g. for - 24 - its ‘narrowness’ (McDonald, 2008) or the lack of explicit definitions regarding e.g. the audience’s role (Robinson, 2017:507)

The first criticism concerns the automatic assumption of security as a negative and normatively regressive development, a classification suggested by the CS itself. Its initial framework depicts securitization as ‘a failure to deal with issues as normal politics’ (Buzan et al., 1998:29) and being associated with ‘panic politics’(ibid.:34). This adds to further silencing calls for an alternative vision of security towards progressive ends (McDonald, 2008:580). However, especially within the context of global environmental change, security must be acknowledged as a site of contestation and thus for (emancipatory) change (ibid.:566), suggesting that environmental securitization might be the most efficient way of conveying the urgency to address climate change.

Another powerful and relevant critique is aimed at the exclusive focus on speech acts as securitizing moves (McDonald, 2008:566). Wæver himself located securitization within Austin’s articulation of the speech act, thereby arguing that particular spoken or written accounts of language itself constitute security (1995:55). This reliance on language becomes problematic, firstly, because it is only one means of communicating meaning and, secondly, because ‘it can exclude forms of bureaucratic practices or physical action that […] are part of the process through which meanings of security are communicated and security itself constructed’ (McDonald, 2008:569). Consequently, various authors emphasize the role of images and audiovisual representations as communicating meaning and constructing security (ibid.:569). This argument is in line with the present study, which analyses and interprets security discourses in a combination of textual (speech acts), visual and audiovisual material.

Additionally, the potential for security to be constructed over an extended period of time through various interrelated processes, speech acts and representations, thereby becoming institutionalized without drastic ‘securitizing moments’ of intervention, is often left out (McDonald, 2008:564,576). Moreover, recognizing the importance of everyday physical actions becomes interesting regarding this study’s side emphasis on resistance and occupation as physical acts of civil disobedience.

Another point of criticism is the state-centered nature of CS’s securitization theory (Mason, Zeiton, 2013:295). Shifting the understanding of referent objects from nation states to human beings and social relationships needing protection from environmental threats has only partially broadened the framework of securitization. Seeing the environment as essential support system

- 25 - for human life, most academic literature still lacks an identification of the environment’s inherent value as autonomous referent object, while suggesting the primacy of humans over nature (Williams, 2013:8).

The objection perhaps most relevant regarding this research refers to the CS’s preoccupation with traditional powerholders as sole securitizing actors being able to ‘speak’ security, consequently making the issue worthy of concentrated political attention within a social space. Political leaders, government representatives, military officials, lobbyists and other typical ‘elites’ are regarded as primary drivers of securitization. This choice to limit the attention to dominant actors can be criticized for giving voice only to those already privileged and powerful, thereby reinforcing pre-existing power structures and further silencing those already marginalized in global politics (McDonald, 2008:565).

4.3. A Broadened Framework for Analysis

Despite its shortcomings, securitization nevertheless implies a comprehensive, multilevel approach towards global environmental change, therefore justifying the redefinition of the security concept towards including environmental issues. Following the abovementioned critique while focusing on environmental securitization, I argue for applying a broadened framework of analysis, based in most aspects on the CS as outlined above, however extended and refined in four significant points. I aim to strengthen the ‘mainstream’ framework for analysis and overcome some of its strongest criticism points, while recognizing the complexity of security constructions in global politics.

1. The environment and its inherent value as referent object

While weighing the potential risks of applying security logic to environmental issues against the possible advantages of focus, attention and mobilization (Waever, 1995:56), this study emphasizes placing the environment itself as referent object within the process of securitization. Although few appeals to environmental security have mobilized exceptional measures in the past (Trombetta, 2008:589), I strongly argue for a focus on the natural environment and its inherent value as being threatened by risks generated through human activities (Græger, 1996:110).

2. Combining textual sources (speech act), images and (audio-)visual material as securitizing moves developed over a period of time

- 26 - As stated above, this study suggests the power of including images and audiovisual representations as potential forms of securitization. Thereby, I do not replace verbal speech acts as securitizing moves, but rather amend the framework to account for numerous ways of communicating meaning and constructing security not instantaneously but over time.

3. Beyond dominant voices - providing a bottom-up account of environmental securitization through local civil society actors (securitizing actor)

My most significant modification of the framework is incorporating alternative securitizing actors, which moves beyond the exclusionary, statist focus on dominant, top-down voices. Thus, I aim to show how security discourses can gain widespread attention leading to local and global mobilization, while finally winning out over contesting dominant discourses, although stemming from a marginalized, non-elite’s perspective. This exceptional focus on a bottom-up perspective on securitization takes away the sole power from ‘big actors’, while simultaneously enabling non- powerholding voices to be heard – thereby creating more space for civil society actors within both academia and external and internal processes of decision-making. Especially in the context of global environmental change as all-encompassing issue of unprecedented dimensions, the interplay of state and non-state actors alike plays a major role in the fight for global environmental justice, environmental security and climate action.

4. Restructuring the order – Extraordinary measures to win the audience? Since its original formulation, the audience’s role has been further developed. While most accounts of securitization highlight the audience’s necessary consent to framing a threat and gaining political legitimacy, this study restructures the ‘traditional’ process of securitization through the application of extraordinary measures as a way of articulating demands. In the example of the Hambach Forest, the audience came into play only in response to the use of exceptional actions such as resistance, occupation and civil disobedience. Within securitization, non-powerholding actors need to attract the attention of various kinds of audiences before being able to spread a security discourse – an obstacle that most traditional securitizing actors do not have due to their powerful status in society. Consequently, the extraordinary measures in this specific case are a form of direct action and gaining widespread attention at the same time, (Balzacq, Léonard and Ruzicka, 2015:512). According to Williams, this focus on - 27 - extraordinary politics both emphasizes and activates the creative potential of securitization as a process of emancipation, openness and self-determination (2015:15- 18).

- 28 - 5. Methodological Framework

The following chapter encompasses a portrayal of the research design followed by an in-depth discussion of the chosen method of analysis within the analytical framework of a broadened understanding of securitization. After the chosen material will be accounted for, the choice of method and research design will be reflected on, followed by the researcher’s own positioning within the study.

5.1. Research Design

In order to conduct an in-depth, detailed examination of a phenomenon within its real-life context (Yin, 1981:59), I will make use of a single instrumental case study (Stake, 1995; quoted in Creswell, 2007:73) as comprehensive research strategy, while taking into account the theory- driven character of this research. Thereby, the following working-definition of a case study will be applied:

‘Case study research is a qualitative approach in which the investigator explores a bounded system (a case) or multiple bounded systems (cases) over time, through detailed, in-depth data collection involving multiple sources of information […], and reports a case description and case-based themes’ (Creswell, 2007:73).

Following Stake (1994), one can identify three types of case studies, namely intrinsic case study, multiple case study and single instrumental case study, whereby the third type (aimed at illustrating an issue or concern through one bounded case) fits the study at hand best. Thus, understanding the case’s complexities is secondary (ibid.).

The phenomenon being studied is the process of securitizing the environment through the group of environmental activists participating in the resistance movement aimed at protecting the Hambach Forest from being cleared, while the overall protest for and occupation of the forest constitutes a bounded system (Creswell, 2007:74). Due to the focus on a specific aspect of the case (Yin, 2003; quoted in Creswell, 2007:75), the type of analysis can be described as an embedded analysis. To set the boundaries (timeframe + setting) that adequately surround the case, the study is focused on the cutting season 2017/2018 and connected events until May 2019, which will be investigated using multiple sources of information and methods of qualitative data collection concerning texts, visual artifacts and audio material in order to understand the multifaceted nature of the case. The material is then analyzed thematically in accordance with the analytical framework of securitization provided earlier in order to ‘report

- 29 - the meaning of the case [resulting from] learning about the issue of the case’ (Creswell, 2007:75) in the final interpretive phase.

5.2. Method

For the academic field of social and political sciences also embracing peace and conflict studies, studying the linkages between language, discourses and power has come to play a special role. As stated by Graham (2005:2), ‘Discourse analysis is a flexible term’, which in turn lead to a variety of approaches to discourse analysis often lacking a clear articulation of concrete strategies used for the analysis (Jørgensen, Phillips, 2002:147). In order to create some form of internal validity as well as replicability for this study, I will lay out a detailed description of discourse analysis I (test, intertextuality, context) accounted for by Gillian Rose (2001) as one way, among others, of interpreting visual material.

To enhance the transparency of this research, I will apply the definition of discourse as ‘a group of statements which structure the way a thing is thought, and the way we act based on this thinking’ (Rose, 2001:136), linked to the idea of discourse as a particular form of knowledge that shapes the way we describe and understand the world (Foucault, 1972; quoted in Jørgensen, Phillips, 2002). As stated by Foucault, human subjects, just the same as relations, objects or places, are not simply born into this world, but rather produced through the immense power of discourses to discipline ‘subjects into certain ways of thinking and acting’ (Rose, 2001:137) through which particular relations of power are realized (Luke, 1991; quoted in Graham, 2005:4). Accordingly, all perceptions are influenced by the discourses one is exposed to every day, which in turn creates and shapes human behavior. It is particularly this interpretative and constructing function of discourses which makes discourse analysis relevant – both in order to understand social phenomena in general (Rose, 2001:162), but also for the purpose of this particular thesis.

Informed by Foucault’s work, Rose aims to carve out the most important steps necessary to undertake a discourse analysis in Foucauldian tradition. Foucault’s emphasis on the importance of power plays a crucial role. According to him, power is assumed to produce knowledge, and power and knowledge directly imply one another. Thus, every kind of knowledge is understood as discursive while all discourses are saturated with power. Consequently, ‘the most powerful discourses, in terms of the productiveness of their social effects, depend on assumptions and claims that their knowledge is true’ (Foucault, 1977:27; quoted in Rose, 2001:138). What is even more important within the context of the present study having its focus on marginalized

- 30 - discourses by civil society actors, Foucault understands power not simply as imposed top down from the elite to the oppressed, but rather as being omnipresent, just the same as discourse too is everywhere at all times (Rose, 2001:137). However, some discourses dominate over others, whereby

‘the dominance of certain discourses occurred not only because they were located in socially powerful institutions - those given coercive powers by the state, for example, such as the police, prisons and workhouses - but also because their discourses claimed absolute truth’ (ibid.:138).

Following Foucault then, wherever there exists power, there also exists resistance; various kinds of resistance in the form of discourses competing in their effects (ibid.).

To gain an overarching picture of a particular discourse, it becomes crucial to account for the intertextuality of discourses, referring to the diversity of visual and verbal images and texts as well as audio material through which discourses are articulated (ibid.:136). Consequently, to grasp the meaning of any discursive element, the meaning communicated through other forms of material needs to be studied - making the use of a case study comprising the analysis of various sources a fitting framework for this interpretive discourse analysis.

Rose separates Foucault’s arguments into two forms of discourse analysis, called discourse analysis I and discourse analysis II (2001:40). While discourse analysis II is focused on the practices of institutions, discourse analysis I pays special attention to the notion of discourse as verbalized through ‘all forms of talk and texts’ (Gill, 1996:143; quoted in Rose, 2001:140), referring to the rhetorical organization and social production of spoken, written and visual materials (Rose, 2001:162).

Particularly this first type of analysis is heavily concerned with language as discourse together with the space it occupies and the knowledge being produced by it (Nead, 1988:4; quoted in Rose, 2001:136). For the purpose of the present study, not only the persuasive power of language but also the ways particular accounts of the social world are constructed through images and truth regimes, is of interest (Rose, 2001:40,140). Especially with visual technology playing a huge part in our contemporary times, these various forms of visual material offer a particular view on the world. Following from that, images can never be ‘innocent’ due to their interpretive and discursive character, displaying the world in very specific ways (ibid.:6).

There is a need to distinguish between vision and visuality. While vision refers to what our eyes can physically see, visuality means the way ‘how we see, how we are able, allowed, or made to

- 31 - see, and how we see this seeing and the unseeing therein’ (Foster,1988a:ix; quoted in Rose, 2001:6). Thus, the way we interpret visual material depends heavily on our own standpoint.

Since the present study is mainly concerned with the way environmental activists make use of the power of language and images to construct their worldview, and only secondarily focused on the social institutions that ‘produced, archived, displayed or sold them’ as well as the social effects, I decided to make use of discourse analysis I. However, due to my focus on civil society actors instead of elite power holders, the social production as well as the construction of social difference within the discourse through discursive claims of truth cannot be neglected downright (Rose, 2001:150,163). Below, the seven steps of discourse analysis I presented by Rose are elaborated:

The first step asks to leave behind all preconceptions and pre-existing categories one might have about the chosen material and looking at it with ‘fresh eyes’ to gain insights that might otherwise been overlooked (Rose, 2001:150).

The second step involves immersing oneself into the material and studying both images and verbal/textual sources multiple times with close attention in order to clasp as many details as possible (ibid.).

In the third step, a coding process is applied by carving out the key themes (reoccurring words of images) within the material (ibid.). One needs to keep in mind that the most important themes might not always be the ones being found the most. During this process, key themes in all sources used are coded and put into clusters , after which linkages between and among these key words and images should be considered in relation to securitization (ibid.:151).

In the following forth step, the more analytical process starts, focusing on the ways in which the discourse works to persuade, how it produces its ‘effects of truth’ (ibid.:154). This involves paying attention to ‘claims to truth, or to scientific certainty, or to the natural way of things’ as well as to how the discourse counters alternative or contradicting discourses.

Additionally, the power of complexity and internal contradictions embedded in the discourse needs to be considered (step five) (ibid.).

The sixth step inspects what is left unspoken or invisible, since what is being silenced, left out or covered up can be as powerful as what is highlighted (ibid.:157-158).

- 32 - As the seventh step, Rose points out the importance of paying great attention to details in order to efficiently grasp the discourse’s claims, and from that grasp deduct the most precise analytical depiction of the particular discourse (ibid.:15).

Furthermore, by citing Gill, Rose explains how ‘all discourse is occasioned’ (Gill, 1996:124; quoted in Rose, 2001:159), meaning that all discourses play out in particular social circumstances or contexts. From that arrives ‘the need to locate the social site from which particular statements are made, and to position the speaker of a statement in terms of their social authority’ (Foucault, 1972:50-52; quoted in Rose, 2001:158). In the case of securitization theory, any announcement stemming from a source of social authority is most likely to be more productive than one coming from a more marginalized social position, making the focus on environmental civil activists as the agents of discourse production especially exceptional in this context. Equally significant for securitization is identifying a discourse’s intended audience, which in turn sheds new light on the social effects created (Rose, 2001:159).

The three major shortcomings of discourse analysis I are linked to all Foucauldian discourse analysis. Firstly, they are often criticized for their vagueness, which leads Potter to describe them as ‘craft skill’ only properly learned by going through this diffuse and complex process repeatedly (1996:140; quoted in Rose, 2001:139). Secondly, practical analytical problems derive from the difficulty to know where to stop making intertextual connections within the ‘free-floating web of meaning unconnected to any social practices’ (Rose, 2001:162).

Finally, the refusal to ascribe causality has been mentioned as problematic, leading often to a blurred relation between discourses and their contexts (ibid.).

On the other hand, a clear strength of Foucauldian discourse analysis is its specific approach to the material while leaving open space for the material’s details to guide the analysis, which in turn creates some sort of flexibility and creativity compared to other methods such as content analysis (ibid.:145).

5.3. Material

Based on the broadened framework of securitization developed above (combining textual sources, images, and audiovisual material as securitizing move developed over time), linked to a case study incorporating multiple sources of information and methods of qualitative data collection, the material analyzed in chapter 6 consists of various different sources representing the Hambach Forest within the context of securitization as comprehensively as possible.

- 33 - Since discourses are articulated through a wide range of texts, images and other audiovisual and verbal material, they are all legitimate sources for a discourse analysis (Rose, 2001:141). However, one difficulty in identifying relevant material is to know where to stop the process of data collection (ibid.:143). Therefore, it is legitimate to select only sources that seem particularly productive and interesting (ibid.)

The following listed material1 is hand-picked by the researcher. It is considered representative of the security discourses created and dispersed by environmental activists participating in the Hambach Forest’s occupation , while also believed to further shape the extended and refined analytical arguments articulated previously.

The wide range of sources utilized for studying the construction of security matters linked to the environment and their underlying social mechanisms allows for data triangulation (Chambliss, Schutt, 2010:87). This refers to the use of different measures and methods of the

1 Material 1 (M1): Hambi bleibt! (2018). Official webpage of the Hambach Forest occupation, offered by Freundeskreis Hambacher Forst Schweiz, Available at: https://hambacherforst.org

Material 2 (M2): @HambiBleibt (2014). Official Twitter page of the Hambach Forest occupation, directly linked to hambacherforst.org, Available at: https://twitter.com/HambiBleibt

Material 3 (M3): Gerd Schinkel (2018). Hambi stays. English version of the song ‘Hambi bleibt’, translated by Matthias Lehmann, Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDUxj8Pu_0A

Material 4 (M4): Ende Gelände (2015). Stop Coal. Protect the Climate!, official webpage of Ende Gelände, Available at: https://www.ende-gelaende.org/en/

Material 5 (M5): Dumke, Kunte, Stahl (2018). Hambacher Forst: Polizei beklagt gewalttätigen Widerstand. Newpaper article published by: NRZ, Available at: https://www.nrz.de/region/niederrhein/hambacher-forst- behoerden-starten-mit-raeumung-der-baumhaeuser-id215314943.html

Material 6 (M6): Disobedient! (2018). Disobedient! Voices for climate justice. Videoclip published by Cine Rebelde in close cooperation with www.ende-gelaende.org, Available at: https://www.cinerebelde.org/disobedient-p-129.html?language=de&osCsid=ncikc2k2j7rmjq32jntaq81251

Material 7 (M7): Politische Bildung (2018). Aktivistin berichtet von Räumung im Hambacher Forst, published on YouTube on 16.09.2018, Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0z9z-t58f2Y&t=5s

Material 8 (M): Keepsake (2018). Hambacher Forst Demo 6.10.2018 Aktivistenrede, published on YouTube 6.10.2018, Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nm3LrbePklc

Material 9 (M8): Images, see Appendix I

- 34 - same ‘variable’ to capture different dimensions of the same phenomenon, while creating various perspectives on the case’s meaning.

While I aimed at avoiding selection biases and provide a point of reference between the individual sources, I acknowledge that the material can be examined from various other theoretical and methodological perspectives, which might result in other findings regarding environmental securitization within the case of Hambach Forest.

Within the following analysis, all material is referred to by using assigned abbreviations in brackets. However, only when a direct citation is presented, the explicit reference will be offered. Otherwise, the portrayed expressions and phrases are considered as belonging to the overall case as represented within the material and will therefore be treated as one material collection. As not all selected sources are available in English, translations are offered within the flow text, while the original is provided in footnotes.

5.4. Reflection on the Linkage between Research Design and Method within the Analytical Framework of Securitization

The study at hand comprises the ontological and epistemological propositions of social constructivism, considering the world as

‘constituted socially through intersubjective interaction; agents and structures [as] mutually constituted; and ideational factors such as norms, identity and ideas generally [as] central to the constitution and dynamics of world politics’ (McDonald, 2008:64)

The underlying belief of the study is that change within socially constructed structures is always possible. Thereby, it fits firmly into the tradition of qualitative research methods to explore human subjectivity in determining the meaning people (as agents of change) give their lives, experiences, and actions (Chambliss, Schutt, 2010:222, 245). Human beings are understood as constructing social ‘meanings as they engage with the world they are interpreting’ (Creswell, 2011:37). This is in line with securitization theory, assuming that something is real when constructed in the minds of involved actors (Williams, 2015:16).

Social constructivists’ skepticism of any theory tighter than loose perspectives goes in line with the analytical framework of this study, indeed relying heavily on the theoretical conception of securitization linked to various other concepts. Importantly, ‘constructivists share a belief that security is a [context-specific] social construction, meaning different things in different contexts’, which develops through social interactions (McDonald, 2013:71). While this leads

- 35 - to avoiding an abstract and universal definition, the main focus is on how security is given contextual meaning as well as how security perspectives and practices occur (ibid.:65-68).

This clearly interpretivist perspective requires an interpretive methodological framework, fitting the underlying ontology and epistemology. As explained by Jørgensen and Phillips (2002:146-148), discourse analysis is the most dominant method in social constructivism and securitization theory due to its general interest in the connection between language, discourse and power, making it a natural choice for this study.

However, academics concerned with broadening the concepts of security and securitization have begun to move away from investigating only ‘speech acts’ as securitizing moves. A growing number of scholars today discusses a broader range of approaches towards political and social actions as ‘constructing’ securitization of various issues, particularly of climate change activism (Balzacq, Léonard and Ruzicka, 2015:519). Accordingly, I use a case study as comprehensive research strategy, allowing to broaden the traditional focus on speech acts towards including various audiovisual and illustrative material to study the construction of security matters and determine their underlying social mechanisms (Balzacq, Léonard and Ruzicka, 2015:519).

5.5. Researcher’s Own Positioning

Following Creswell (2009:267), it is crucial for the researcher to reflect on personal biases, values and discourses. Knowing of the general weakness of qualitative research to focus on individual interpretation, I acknowledge that my own background, the discourses I am being exposed to daily as well as my cultural experiences shape the way I make sense of and analyze the material at hand. Especially relevant within discourse analysis, I understand my own position not as autonomous subject, but rather as constructed by and subjected to discourse (Reitan, Gibson, 2012:407), accepting that research as knowledge production itself is part of discursive formation (Rose, 2001:160).

Concerning the narrow context of the Hambach Forest, I wish to acknowledge my positioning in favor of the environmental activists and their demands. Although indeed influencing my choice of topic, I do not consider my personal ‘agenda’ as affecting the outcomes of my study inappropriately due to the study’s focus is the process of environmental securitization rather than the ongoing conflict within the Hambach Forest per se.

- 36 - To avoid misinterpretation of the language and images used by the environmental activists and to reflect critically on their agency (ibid.:161), I aim to portray much of the material as direct quotations and therefore consider the civil society actors and their audience as ‘co-authors’.

- 37 - 6. Analysis

The following chapter contains a detailed analysis of the identified material. Its purpose is to investigate how the environment has been constructed as a security issue by the environmental activists participating in the resistance movement and occupation aimed at protecting the Hambach Forest, linked to the underlying social mechanisms involved in this process of securitization. The operational questions will be utilized to guide the structure of the following analysis, which will be subdivided into two parts. While the first part is dedicated to the in- depth identification of reoccurring themes, expressions and visual representations within the chosen material, a reflection on the underlying discourses and their interpretation within the context of the broadened framework of securitization will be provided in the second part. These parts will then be joined together in the subsequent section, leading to a comprehensive reflection on the main research question.

It is crucial to remark that the 7 steps of discourse analysis I cannot be performed distinct from another since it lies in the very nature of discourse analysis that all aspects are interrelated. Instead of separating the analysis of the (audio-)visual from that of the textual (speech act) material, all sources will be analyzed and presented in relation to each other.

6.1. Analysis Part I – Themes, expressions, visual representations

To sufficiently address the selected material, it is crucial to let go of all preconceptions while studying the selected material multiple times in order to grasp as many details as possible, find key themes and identify possible connection among and between them. With the purpose of investigating how this particular case of securitization developed, the first section will be broken down into smaller parts according to the main components of securitization theory.

Securitizing actor:

After having studied the material multiple times, the main securitizing actors can be defined as: all environmental activists participating in the resistance and occupation surrounding the Hambach Forest.

Based on the material, the self-representation of the environmental activists resolves around two thematic clusters appearing somewhat contradicting at first glance: diversity and solidarity.

Within the diversity cluster, formulations such as ‘many initiatives’, individuals’, ‘from different political spectra’, ‘people from many countries’ and ‘no matter what kind of body you

- 38 - have, no matter your gender, your sexuality’2 find a place. It becomes clear that the environmental activists understand themselves as ‘a colorful mixed bunch of people’3 within the civil society sector. This is further highlighted through the following phrase: ‘Everyone speaks for themselves. We are not formal body or organization, but an association of free individuals’.4 Thereby, not only forest squatters are declared as securitizing actors, but also ‘lawyers, doctors and neighbors with warm showers and big hearts’5 are included into the group of civil society actors aimed at provoking social and political change.

Simultaneously, several formulations articulate the high level of solidary and support prevailing between the activists. Phrases such as ‘we stand side by side with all the people’6 and ‘care and support’ reflect the solidarity between ‘all those who resist the destruction of the climate’7. This issue is emphasized e.g. through a recording of activists collectively carrying deforested trees and other material in order to erect barricades to block the road, solidarity being further expressed by the continuous use of pronouns such as ‘us’, ‘we’ or ‘our’ instead of first person formulations such as ‘I’ or ‘me’ in all sources. Particular in Ende Gelände actions8, group spirit becomes visible in common wearing of painter’s suits with the purpose of creating a visible direct action.

Existential threat:

Regarding the portrayal of the existential threat within all sources, four interrelated key themes can be identified: RWE; brown coal mining; state and police; and the capitalist system.

A major constructed existential threat (referent subject) is undisputedly the ‘coal corporation’ and ‘energy giant’ RWE. Thereby, RWE, a ‘giant company with endless resources’9 is explicitly portrayed as ‘threatening’, targeting’ and ‘preparing to deliver its final blow’10.

Another identified cluster heavily interlinked with the beforementioned one is the broader theme of brown coal mining. The term itself appears repeatedly in written form, while occupying immense parts of the images and (audio-)visual material through the depiction of

2 M6 3 M1 4 M1 5 M1 6 M4 7 M4 8 M3 9 M8 10 M4 - 39 - the Hambach open-cast coal mine, bucket excavators and lignite power plants. Thereby, huge bucket excavators seem to become a symbol for threatening ‘brown coal mining’ and ‘fossil- fueled energy’. Especially the phrase ‘Excavators are constantly digging their way into the countryside, swallowing up forests, fertile farmland and entire villages’11 underlines this notion. Meanwhile, the environmental activists are portrayed as fighting ‘against the further mining and burning of coal, which is one of the crucial causes for the global warming and its dramatic consequences’12

The third theme contains state and police. While the police are portrayed as threatening counterplayer by using phrases such as ‘cops’, ‘misguided fools’, ‘insincerity’ and ‘you and your cohort’13, the state government is continuously criticized for their ‘support for a climate- damaging project’14. Particularly one statement on the occupation’s official webpage, stating ‘the German state […] will use every weapon they can to criminalize and break our resistance. State repression has many shapes, police violence, fines or imprisonment’15, clearly frames both police forces and the support of the German government as existential threat. This is complemented by various images of police officers in full police uniforms, including ‘water guns’16 and ‘truncheons’17.

Moreover, several textual sources refer to the key theme of the capitalist system as threat. Thereby, ‘the everyday insanity of capitalism’18 and ‘the ruling of power’19 is made responsible for environmental destruction. Phrases such as ‘profit’, ‘rulers’, ‘domination’, ‘bosses’, ‘hierarchies’ and ‘capitalists’ can be identified as part of this cluster.

Referent object:

Next, there are two clusters regarding the question of who/what is being portrayed as referent object in this case study.

With the overall aim of protecting the Hambach Forest from being cleared, it appears self- descriptive that the Hambach Forest itself is defined as referent object, which is shown through

11 M4 12 M4 13 M3 14M5 'Unterstützung der Landesregierung für ein klimaschädliches Vorhaben des Energiekonzerns RWE' (author’s own translation) 15 M1 16 'Wasserwerfer' (author’s own translation) 17 'Knüppel' (author’s own translation) 18 M1 19 M1 - 40 - reoccurring words and phrases such as ‘trees’, ‘forest’, ‘against deforestation’, ‘majestic old growth forest’, ‘primaeval forest’ and especially the slogan ‘Hambi bleibt!’20. This major focus on the forest as valuable ecosystem is complemented through reappearing images of deforested trees or aerial photographs of the remaining parts of the forest. Particularly interesting is the official Twitter account @HambiBleibt, written from the Hambach Forest’ perspective, stating that ‘I am a forest trying to survive near an open-pit coal-mine’. Thereby, the forest itself is given a voice by personifying it.

Importantly, on closer examination, another referent object becomes evident: the environment. Within this cluster, a broad variety of different expressions and visual representations can be summarized, such as: ‘nature’, ‘climate’, ‘earth’, ‘forest’, ‘rain’, ‘vivacious’, ‘basis of life’, ‘primeval forest’, ‘ecosystem’ and ‘mother earth’.

Extraordinary measures:

The wide-ranging direct and indirect extraordinary measures to protect the forest can be classified under four main key themes: occupation, civil disobedience and resistance, and sabotage.

The occupation of the Hambach Forest itself is thematized in all of the selected sources. Thereby, the ‘tree houses’21 inhabited by ‘a total of 120 to 150 occupants’22 also during clearing seasons are omnipresent in visual and textual material, along with platforms, suspensions bridges and climbing structures within the (audio-)visual sources. The ‘meadow camp’ is considered as part of the permanent occupation of the forest.

Moreover, several forms of civil disobedience and resistance are being portrayed. Activists distinguish between human blockages, such as ‘large amounts of people using their bodies to block bucket excavators’23, ‘human chains’, ‘sitting-blockages and ‘lock-ons’, and structural blockages like ‘barricades’, ‘monopods’, ‘tripods’. Additionally, most of the occupants appear only masked on the material, which in itself can be regarded as form of resistance, complemented by the refusal to give personal details or fingerprints to the police. Other actions

20 ‘Hambi stays!’ (author’s own translation) 21 ’51 errichteten Baumhäuser’ (author’s own translation) 22 ‘insgesamt etwa 120 bis 150 Waldbesetzer‘ (author’s own translation) 23 M1 - 41 - such as ‘chaining to trees’ or ‘replacing the deforested trees with new trees’24 are presented within various sources.

The key theme sabotage is explicitly described on the official webpage of the occupation and refers to any criminal elements intended to direct well-aimed destruction or interruption of machines (diggers, conveyer belts, railways), tools, infrastructure (energy-cables, train-tracks) or power-plants of RWE25. Various methods such as ‘locking on to the tracks’ or ‘erecting tripods’ are applied.

Taken together, a broad variety of mass-civil disobedience, direct actions, mass- demonstrations, militant and peaceful protests and acts of resistance are comprehensively described and illustrated within the material.

Audience:

Regarding the intended audience, two different directions can be identified, especially within the textual material. One the one hand, RWE, authorities and the police are addressed in form of a warning. On the other hand, the overall German population is called upon to participate in the ongoing resistance. This appeal is not primarily directed at politicians as in other movements, but for people within the civil society to take back their power to stand together and protect the forest and the environment.

6.2. Analysis Part II – Analyzing the Discourses in Light of the Broadened Securitization Framework

The next stage entails scrutinizing the findings, identifying the underlying discourses and possible interrelations among them. By investigating how the discourses try to persuade while detecting their complexities and potential contradictions, the identified discourses will be reflected upon within the context of the broadened framework of securitization outlined above, thereby shedding light on the ways in which the discourses work to produce its effects of truth.

When looking at how RWE, the German state and the police are being portrayed within the account of the activists, the construction of them as real and serious threat becomes visible, assigning them a status as ‘enemy’. According to Vurorinen, ‘The image of an enemy is essentially an image of threat. It represents an imminence of unwanted acts’ (2012:3).

24 M8 25 M1 - 42 - Consequently, through the explicit application of a friend-enemy distinction (William, 2015:114), which separates the in-group of environmental activists from the out-group of RWE, police and state, a discourse of them as urgent threat to very important values is constructed. This securitizing discourse can in turn be used to mobilize the in-group to achieve substantial social and political effects, while protecting the referent object from the threat. Abbreviations such as ‘FUCK RWE’ or ‘ACAB’26 painted on the walls of the tree houses further underline the activist’s opposition towards hegemonic, elitist structures and top-down power relations (Pfeifer et al., 2017:6). Especially due to the environmental activists’ otherwise seemingly inclusive, tolerant and non-judgmental attitude, the designation of someone as ‘enemy’ appears particularly striking, indicating the severity of the threat construction.

Thereby, the collective identity of environmental activists as securitizing actor is constructed by clearly separating between ‘us’27 and ‘our wish to overcome exploitation of nature’28 opposed to ‘this people’29 and ‘their’ ‘threat’, relating to the beforementioned theme of solidarity and highlighting the collective struggle against the identified threat.

The same antithetical logic is used within the next underlying discourse, which can be summarized under the reoccurring theme ‘System change not climate change’, portraying the capitalist system as part of the existential threat and the climate as belonging to the broader referent object of the environment. The motivations and motives of the activists of the Hambach Forest overlap in the rejection of the capitalist system, whereby nature and environment are explicitly placed in opposition to this economic system causing various forms of human exploitation and environmental destruction alike. Thereby, the underlying notion of the indispensable interrelation between human well-being (human security) and environmental well-being becomes evident, which demonstrates the necessity for a radical societal change. According to Booth, this freeing of both humans and nature from a system of constraints and exploitation creates a form of emancipation which, as opposed to political or economic power, produces ‘true security’ (1991a:319; quoted in Bilgin, 2013:103-104).

26 ‘All cops are bastards’ 27 M1 28 M3 29 M7

- 43 - Similarly, brown coal mining and the preservation and protection of trees and overall ecosystems in the Hambach Forest are presented as directly opposing each other, a discourse particularly revealed in the following image:

Figure 2: Hambach Forest vs. Hambach Surface Mine (Source: Ende Gelände,2018)

Thereby, the construction of deforestation and mining executed by RWE as existential threat posed towards the forest in particular and the broader natural environment in general is further intensified.

Following these discourses surrounding an explicit threat-construction of various interrelated referent subjects, all components actively and passively contributing to global environmental change are together being portrayed as existential threat by the environmental activists. This degradation of nature is embodied particularly through RWE connected to brown- coal mining, the German state linked to the police, and the capitalist system.

What follows from that might be the most outstanding ideological discourse reflected in the material. Articulated through phrases such as ‘abusing nature, our friend’30 and ‘Because they need this forest just as much! And this earth!’31, it is shown that the environmental activists are not fighting for their own sake, but rather for any living creature inhabiting the earth and against

30 M2 31 M7 ‘Weil sie diesen Wald genau so brauchen! und diese Erde!’ (author’s own translation) - 44 - the destruction of the natural environment. While most accounts of environmental securitization lack a clear focus on human generated risks to the environment, the identification not only of the Hambach Forest, but especially of the overall environment as being threatened is particularly striking within the material. Hence, by building the process of securitization around the representation of the natural environment as referent object, the activists contribute profoundly towards constructing an understanding of it as valuable and therefore in need of protection in its own, thereby adding a whole new dimension to the security agenda.

To achieve this objective, the activists take enormous measures, raising a question regarding the necessity and legitimacy of their actions presented to the German population (intended audience). What becomes apparent is the open and almost ‘proud’ way of dealing with these measures, although most of them can be defined as illegal, resulting in a great risk of repressions and legal consequences. This perceived necessity/legitimacy is presented through three interrelating discourses.

The first one is best described as ‘Act before it’s too late’, which refers to the urgency imparted considering global environmental degradation. By presenting climate change, environmental disasters and the increase in greenhouse gas emissions as pressing emergency, the environmental activists consider ‘it necessary and appropriate to go one step further’32 to stop these frightening developments ‘now, before it’s too late’33. Thereby, they refer to the shift from public protest as form of ‘normal politics’, to mass-actions of civil disobedience as outlined in the previous section.

Linked to that is the perceived necessity for extraordinary measures, which is explicitly stated by ‘coal exit is still manual work’34. Thereby, the activists follow the belief that ‘Hope arises where people take their fate into their own hands’35, undertaking action themselves through civil disobedience as a radical and powerful weapon36 to provoke real action and change towards a system, that puts the environment before profit. Consequently, they justify their exceptional measures and ‘everyday acts of resistance’ (Pfeifer et al.,2017:6-7) by articulating the need for the people to achieve societal change by themselves without relying and thereby giving power to political leaders, dominant voices and elites.

32 M3 33 M6 34 M3 35 M3 36 M6 - 45 - Thus, the environmental activists provide an extraordinary, bottom-up example of environmental securitization stemming from a local civil society perspective, following the ‘activist version’ provided by Kaldor:

‘Civil society refers to active citizenship, to growing self-organization outside formal political circles, and expanded space in which individual citizens can influence the conditions in which they live both directly through self-organization and through political pressure’ (2003:8).

As shown above, this goes beyond traditional strategies of the environmental movement and towards a non-traditional securitization as a way of articulating their demands, showing ‘how change from below looks like’37. As shown in the song ‘Hambi stays’, the activists strongly believe that ‘resistance pays’38, thereby following the well-known statement of Berthold Brecht, saying ‘When injustice becomes right, resistance becomes an obligation!’39.

Consequently, by portraying the Hambach Forest as symbol for the battle against ruthless energy companies (‘climate killers’40) and environmental destruction, representing the forest as ‘the beginning of something bigger’41 is used to legitimize both resistance and occupation retrospectively.

Moreover, the translation of the official webpage into English suggests a widened intended audience beyond Germany, due to the global nature of environmental issues. While using various forms of environmental activism to attract wide-spread attention, ‘the politics of the extraordinary’ (Williams, 2015:116) are utilized as mobilization strategy aimed at convincing the audience to join the struggle for climate justice, anti-capitalism and environmental security.

Another discourse, however, not directly related to the topic of this study, is related to gender equality. Hierarchies relating to gender, sex or sexuality are discursively dismantled by the environmental activists, particularly through the application of gender-neutral language such as ‘Aktivist*innen’42 or ‘mensch’43. This is especially striking for its unusualness within both German language and the broader German society.

37 M3 38 M2 ‘Wo Unrecht zu Recht wird, wird Widerstand zur Pflicht‘ (author’s own translation) 39 M6 40 M2 41 M6 42 Refering to male, female and other activists (author’s own translation) 43 Using of ‘human being’ instead of gendered pronouns such as ‘he/she’ (author’s own translation) - 46 - 7. Conclusion

The following conclusion will finally turn towards a comprehensive reflection on the main research question regarding the way the environment is securitized by the activists participating in the occupation and resistance at protecting the Hambach Forest. Thus, both analytical parts will be tied together and discussed within the context of the broadened framework of securitization, thereby shedding light on the ways in which the discourses work to produce its effects of truth. After summarizing the study’s findings, themes for further research will be proposed.

7.1. Concluding Remarks and Answering the Research Question

According to the traditional approach, five main components belong the securitization process, which have guided the operational questions within the study: 1. a securitizing actor/agent, 2. an existential threat/referent, 3. a referent object, 4. an audience and 5. the application of extraordinary measures presented as solution within the given context. Within the first part of the analysis, all components have been identified for the selected material portraying the case of Hambach Forest. While the securitizing actor is defined as all environmental activists participating in the resistance and occupation surrounding the Hambach Forest, RWE linked to brown coal mining, the German state and police as well as the capitalist system are depicted as existential threat towards the environment in general and the Hambach Forest in particular as referent object. Following from that, various extraordinary measures linked to occupation, civil disobedience and resistance, and sabotage are applied and afterwards legitimized towards particularly the German population as intended audience.

The theoretical foundation underlying this study is a securitization framework extending the CS’s theory in four significant points: inclusion of the environment as referent object; providing a bottom-up account of environmental securitization through local civil society actors; focusing on extraordinary measures as form of direct action and attracting widespread attention simultaneously and combining of textual, figurative and (audio-)visual material as securitizing moves.

When comparing traditional approaches of environmental securitization with the present account, various differences become clear, highlighting the contribution of this research to the academic debate concerning the relevance of including global environmental concerns into the security agenda. By analyzing the construction of environmental security through various kinds

- 47 - of textual, illustrative and (audio-)visual material, the study actively contributes to the broadening of the securitization framework beyond the single focus on speech acts by highlighting the various ways of constructing and communicating meaning and discourses. Moreover, the particular focus on extraordinary measures as an unusual way of gaining attention and providing direct action at the same time further redefines the analytical framework of securitization. Moreover, while security and securitization are mainly assumed as negative and normatively regressive development, the present study highlights the potential of securitization to provoke social and political change by mobilizing the emancipatory power of non-powerholding civil society actors, thereby extending the traditional framework beyond dominant voices. Although I am aware of the often hold understanding of securitization as ‘failed politics’, I argue that the securitization of the Hambach Forest in particular, symbolizing the securitization of the environment and its inherent value in general, can be seen as most suitable approach to alert policy makers, political leaders and the broader society of the emergency surrounding climate change and global environmental degradations. By seeing the value of the instrumental case of the Hambach Forest not only in the forest itself, but rather in the way it shows how the environment can be securitized by non-traditional, but equally successful actors, I understand the major contribution of this study as broadening the security agenda towards the necessary inclusion of the environment and its inherent value for human security and world peace.

As powerfully stated by Vandana Shiva,

‘The climate crisis is at its roots a consequence of human beings having gone astray from the ecological path of living with justice and sustainability. It is a consequence of forgetting that we arc earth citizens’ (quoted in Van Gelder, 2003:1). Conclusively, this study highlights the immense power of individual and collective action to challange hegemonic discourses and transform existing structures, based on the following belief: ‘Be the change you want to see in the world’.

7.2. Further research

Several other interesting themes emerged during the course of this research, which however extend the scope of the present thesis and thus warrant further research:

Introduced by Khagram et al. and highly relevant is the notion of ‘sustainable security’, referring to the understanding of seeing nature as valuable in its own (2003:301). Due to this

- 48 - study’s focus on the environment as referent object within the framework of securitization, it might be interesting to investigate the significance of their theoretical argument for the specific case of the Hambach Forest in order to further explain the complex interactions between states, human being and the environment within the international security agenda.

Moreover, digging deeper into questions addressing the circumstances under which this extraordinary process has been possible to emergence in Germany becomes relevant to understand the importance of specific contexts for the success of securitization.

Since the occupation the Hambach Forest is currently ongoing, another relevant aspect for further research stems from the expected court decision in 2020, which aims at ending the conflict between RWE and the environmental activists surrounding the forest, at least from a legal perspective. Consequently, further research might consider the question whether the German government and legislation values environmental security over economic security or potentially the other way around.

- 49 - 8. Reference list

Baldwin, D. A. (1997). The concept of security. Review of international studies, 23(1), 5- 26.

Balzacq, T., Léonard, S., & Ruzicka, J. (2016). ‘Securitization’revisited: Theory and cases. International Relations, 30(4), 494-531.

Barnett, J., & Adger, W. N. (2007). Climate change, human security and violent conflict. Political geography, 26(6), 639-655.

Bilgin, P. (2013). Critical theory. In Williams, P.D. (2013). Security Studies – An Introduction, 2nd Edition, New York: Routledge. 90-106.

Brock, A., & Dunlap, A. (2018). Normalising corporate counterinsurgency: Engineering consent, managing resistance and greening destruction around the Hambach coal mine and beyond. Political Geography, 62, 33-47.

Balzacq, T., & Guzzini, S. (2015). Introduction:‘What kind of theory–if any–is securitization?’. International relations, 29(1), 97-102.

Barry, B. (1991). People, States and Fear: An Agenda for International Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era. Dorchester: Pearson-Longman.

Buzan, B. (1983). People, states, and fear: The national security problem in international relations. Wheatsheaf Books.

Buzan, B., Wæver, O., Wæver, O., & De Wilde, J. (1998). Security: a new framework for analysis. Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Chambliss, D.F. & Schutt, R.K. (2010). (3rd Ed.) Making Sense of the Social World: Methods of Investigation. Thousand Oaks, California: Pine Forge Press.

Creswell, J.W. (2007) (2nd Ed.) Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.

Creswell, J.W. (2009) (3rd Ed.) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.

Dalby, S. (2013). Climate change and environmental security. In Williams, P.D. (2013). Security Studies – An Introduction, 2nd Edition, New York: Routledge. 311-323.

Dalkowski, S. (2018). Hambacher Forst – Chronologie der Ereignisse. Available at:

- 50 - https://rp-online.de/nrw/panorama/hambacher-forst-chronologie-der-ereignisse_aid 32968789 [Accessed: April 15, 2019].

Disobedient! (2018). Disobedient! Voices for climate justice. Available at: https://www.cinerebelde.org/disobedient-p- 129.html?language=de&osCsid=ncikc2k2j7rmjq32jntaq81251 [Accessed: May 20, 2019].

Donahue, M. (2018). Ancient Forest Home of Squatter Communities Is Doomed by Coal. Available at: https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/04/hambach-forest-germany- logging-coal-conservation-science/ [Accessed: April 16, 2019].

Dumke, Kunte, Stahl (2018). Hambacher Forst: Polizei beklagt gewalttätigen Widerstand. Available at: https://www.nrz.de/region/niederrhein/hambacher-forst- behoerden-starten-mit-raeumung-der-baumhaeuser-id215314943.html [Accessed: May 23, 2019].

Ende Gelände. (2015). Stop Coal. Protect the Climate!, official webpage of Ende Gelände, Available at: https://www.ende-gelaende.org/en/ [Accessed: May 23, 2019].

Gemenne, F., Barnett, J., Adger, W. N., & Dabelko, G. D. (2014). Climate and security: evidence, emerging risks, and a new agenda. Springer, 123(1), 1-9.

Graeger, N. (1996). Environmental security?. Journal of Peace Research, 33(1), 109-116.

Graham, L. J. (2005). Discourse analysis and the critical use of Foucault. The Australian Association of Research in Education Annual Conference.

Hambi bleibt! (2018). Official webpage of the Hambach Forest. Available at: https://hambacherforst.org [Accessed: April 14, 2019].

Hayes, J., & Knox-Hayes, J. (2014). Security in climate change discourse: analyzing the divergence between US and EU approaches to policy. Global Environmental Politics, 14(2), 82-101.

Homer-Dixon, T. F. (1994). Environmental scarcities and violent conflict: evidence from cases. International security, 19(1), 5-40.

Jørgensen, M. W., & Phillips, L. J. (2002). Discourse analysis as theory and method. Sage.

Kaldor, Mary (2003). Global Civil Society – An Answer to War, Cambridge: Polity Press.

Keepsake (2018). Hambacher Forst Demo 6.10.2018 Aktivistenrede. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nm3LrbePklc [Accessed: May 23, 2019].

- 51 -

Khagram, S., Clark, W., & Raad, D. F. (2003). From the environment and human security to sustainable security and development. Journal of Human development, 4(2), 289-313.

Kostic, R., Krampe, F., & Swain, A. (2012). Liberal State-Building and Environmental Security: the International Community Between Trade-Off and Carelessness. The Security- Development Nexus: Peace, Conflict and Development, 41-64.

Leboeuf, A., & Broughton, E. (2008). Securitization of health and environmental issues: process and effects. A research outline. Health and Environment Working Document, Institut Français des Relations Internationales (Ifri).

Lederach, John Paul (1997). Building Peace – Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies, Washington DC: USIP.

Mason, M., & Zeitoun, M. (2013). Questioning environmental security. The Geographical Journal, 179(4), 294-297.

Mathews, J. T. (1989). Redefining security. Foreign affairs, 68(2), 162-177.

McDonald, M. (2008). Securitization and the Construction of Security. European journal of international relations, 14(4), 563-587.

McDonald, M. Constructivism. In Williams, P.D. (2013). Security Studies – An Introduction, 2nd Edition, New York: Routledge. 59-72.

O'Brien, K., & Barnett, J. (2013). Global environmental change and human security. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 38, 373-391.

Oei, P. Y., Brauers, H., Kemfert, C., Kittel, M., Göke, L., von Hirschhausen, C., & Walk, P. (2018). Kohleausstieg in NRW im deutschen und europäischen Kontext: Energiewirtschaft, Klimaziele und wirtschaftliche Entwicklung. DIW Berlin: Politikberatung kompakt. 129.

Pfeifer, T., Schneider, T., & Stadtmann, M. (2017) Aktivismus im Hambacher Forst– Alltag als politisches Mittel.

Politische Bildung (2018). Aktivistin berichtet von Räumung im Hambacher Forst. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0z9z-t58f2Y&t=5s [Accessed: May 22, 2019].

Ratner, B.D. (2018). Environmental security: dimensions and priorities. Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel to the Global Environment Facility. Washington, DC.

- 52 - Reitan, R., & Gibson, S. (2012). Climate change or social change? Environmental and leftist praxis and participatory action research. Globalizations, 9(3), 395-410.

Robinson, C. (2017). Tracing and explaining securitization: Social mechanisms, process tracing and the securitization of irregular migration. Security dialogue, 48(6), 505-523.

Rogers, P. Peace Studies. In Collins, A. (Ed.). (2016). Contemporary security studies. Oxford University Press. 58-69.

Rose, G. (2001). Visual Methodologies: An Introduction to the Interpretation of Visual Materials, Sage Publications, incorporated, 135- 163.

Sander, H. (2017). Ende Gelände: Anti-Kohle-Proteste in Deutschland. Forschungsjournal Soziale Bewegungen, 30(1), 26-36.

Schink, A. (2019). Hambi bleibt!?. Natur und Recht, 41(2), 77-82.

Schinkel, G. (2018). Hambi stays. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDUxj8Pu_0A [Accessed: May 22, 2019].

Schneider, I. (2018) Chronologie: Der Hambacher Forst Available at: https://www.fluter.de/chronologie-hambacher-forst-proteste [Accessed: April 14, 2019].

Shiva, V. (2009). Soil not oil: environmental justice in an age of climate crisis. Alternatives Journal, 35(3), 18-22.

Trombetta, M. J. (2008). Environmental security and climate change: analysing the discourse. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 21(4), 585-602.

Waever, O. (1995). Identity, integration and security: solving the sovereignty puzzle in EU studies. Journal of international affairs, 389-431.

Wæver, O. (2011). Politics, security, theory. Security Dialogue, 42(4-5), 465-480.

Williams, P. D. (2013). Security studies: an introduction. In Security Studies (pp. 23-34). Routledge.

Williams, M. C. (2015). Securitization as political theory: The politics of the extraordinary. International Relations, 29(1), 114-120.

Van Gelder, S. R. (2003). Earth democracy: an interview with Vandana Shiva. Yes! magazine.

- 53 - Vuorinen, M. (Ed.). (2012). Enemy images in war propaganda. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Yin, R. K. (1981). The case study crisis: Some answers. Administrative science quarterly, 26(1), 58-65.

@HambiBleibt (2014). Official Twitter page of the Hambach Forest occupation. Available at: https://twitter.com/HambiBleibt [Accessed: May 24, 2019].

- 54 - APPENDIX I:

Source:

Hambi bleibt! (2018). Official webpage of the Hambach Forest occupation, offered by Freundeskreis Hambacher Forst Schweiz, Available at: https://hambacherforst.org

- 55 -

- 56 - Source:

Ende Gelände (2015). Stop Coal. Protect the Climate!, official webpage of Ende Gelände, Available at: https://www.ende-gelaende.org/en/

- 57 -