How environmental change has led to conflicts in various parts of the globe. (Presentation By Osward Chishanga)

Environmental changes have since played a pivotal role in causing conflicts globally.Climate change does not directly cause conflicts it nevertheless is a prominent factor in causing conflicts as Changes in the environment alone will not result in conflict. They need to be combined with existing divisions within society, be they ethnic, or religious. As Idean Salehyan argues, there is much more to armed conflict than resource scarcity and natural disasters. However, that does not mean that resources and changes in the environment should be excluded as potential factors in the outbreak of conflict. A decline in water supplies for drinking and irrigation, a decline in agricultural productivity as a result of changes in rainfall, temperature and pest patterns, and large economic and human losses attributable to extreme weather events have taken a toll on the global system as a whole and resultantly they have led to the eruption of conflicts in most environmentally and politically vulnerable states. We shall examine three types of conflicts that are linked to climate change which are political violence, Inter-communal violence and Interstate warfare

According to an August 1, 2013 study titled “Quantifying the Influence of Climate on Human Conflict” published in The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), there is a clear statistical link between climate change and conflict. This research indicates that increases in temperature and precipitation are correlated with higher risks of social upheaval, as well as personal violence. The study showed that climate change exacerbated existing social and interpersonal tensions. Extreme rainfall, drought and hotter temperatures increased the frequency of interpersonal violence and inter-group conflict. The researchers in this study anticipate more conflict as the world is expected to warm 2 to 4 degrees C by 2050. They estimate that a 2C (3.6F) rise in global temperature could see personal crimes increase by about 15 percent, and group conflicts rise by more than 50 percent in some regions. Climate change has been specifically correlated with a rise in assaults, rapes and murders, as well as group conflicts and war. They also report a relationship between rising temperatures and larger conflicts, including ethnic clashes in Europe and South Asia as well as civil wars in Africa.

POLITICAL VIOLENCE CONFLICT

An April 2007 report by the Military Advisory Board of the CNA Corporation, a US-based think tank, seeks to make explicit the link between climate change and terrorism. In the report, retired Admiral T. Joseph Lopez states that “climate change will provide the conditions that will extend the war on terror”. ⁴ This statement is based on the premise that greater poverty, increased forced migration and higher unemployment will create conditions ripe for extremists and terrorists. ⁵ Although there is a well-established link between economic disadvantage and civil unrest, this does not necessarily manifest itself through terrorism.

INTER-COMMUNAL CONFLICT

This type of conflict is directly linked to the environment and it notes that, At the most basic level, we all depend on the natural environment for our survival. It is the sole provider of the most basic of human needs: food, water and shelter. Global warming and the resulting changes in the environment will affect our ability to meet these needs. Conflict as a result of climate change is likely to emerge if a) the carrying capacity of the land is overwhelmed, or b) as a result of competition over specific resources.

Carrying capacity

Carrying capacity is defined as the maximum number of people an area can support without deterioration. Climate change will alter the carrying capacity of many vulnerable areas of the world either as a result of land degradation (flooding, drought and soil erosion) or the pressures of migration. “If there is a choice between starving and raiding, humans raid,” according to Harvard archaeologist Dr. Steven LeBlanc. The most combative societies are therefore often the ones that survive

Many climate change scientists predict that there will be a “significant drop in the carrying capacity of the Earth’s environment” ⁹ which could potentially lead to the sort of Hobbesian state which LeBlanc describes.

Migration

Environmental-related migration between and within states may increase existing tensions and/or create new ones, potentially leading to conflict. This issue will primarily affect underdeveloped states as weak infrastructure, resource scarcity and income disparity increase the risk of migration-related conflict. Poverty and resource scarcity are exacerbated by an influx of immigrants, especially if environmental migrants worse existing tensions and divisions within society (ethnic, national or religious).

In Bangladesh, the past few decades have seen major migration to India as a result of environmental changes. The explosion in Bangladesh’s population and the precarious natural environment have led to a steady decline in arable land per capita and a subsequent drop in agricultural productivity, leading to the migration of Bengali’s to the neighbouring Indian states of Assam and Tripura. The migrants have altered the economy, land distribution and political power in both receiving areas, leading to serious civil unrest. InTripura, violence broke out between 1980 and 1988 as the original residents, now a minority in their own state, became increasingly resentful of the migrants’ presence.

However, conflict will only occur if the receiving area is unable to deal with the migrants. Although there is speculation that Northern Europe could receive vast numbers of environmental migrants from Southern Europe and Africa, it is unlikely that this would cause conflict as these developed states have the capacity to deal with migrants. However, politicians in some Western European states need to tackle the underlying issues of climate change and racial tensions to prevent a large influx of migrants provoking an increase in racially motivated political violence.

INTERSTATE WARFARE

‘Water wars’ are set to increase as water levels decline and rapidly growing populations place increasing pressure on water supplies. The potential for conflict over water is huge, with over 200 river basins touching multiple nations. Israel, the Palestinian Territories and Jordan all rely on the River Jordan for their water supply, but it is largely controlled by Israel. Palestinian access to the water is severely restricted and has been cut by Israel in times of scarcity. In this already volatile region any significant change in water supply could lead to renewed tension and conflict.

Bangladesh is also vulnerable to changes in water supply. Lying in a low-level delta area, sea level rises would devastate the country, reducing the available drinking water and agricultural land and causing thousands of refugees to flee across the border into neighbouring India. So concerned are Indian officials about this that they are building a large fence along the Assamese border with Bangladesh.

Sharing a water source does not always lead to conflict however; water access between India and Pakistan has been an important feature of conflict resolution negotiations, and in Latin America, interdependence among states who share the Lempa Basin has encouraged the development of regional mechanisms to manage supplies.

These examples offer some hope that we may be able to successfully resolve and prevent resource-based conflict if we begin to take the risk of environmental conflict seriously, and explore the ways that resources can bring groups and communities together rather than divide them.

DARFUR

In Darfur for example, there is already growing evidence to support the theory that the current conflict in Darfur is partly due to land degradation as a result of climate change. Less than a generation ago, Africans and Arabs lived peacefully and productively in Darfur. More recently, desertification and increasingly regular drought cycles have diminished the availability of water and arable land, which has in turn, led to repeated clashes between pastoralists and farmers.Dr. John Reid, the then British Defence Secretary, speaking in March 2006 stated that “the blunt truth is that the lack of water and agricultural land is a significant contributory factor to the tragic conflict we see unfolding in Darfur.” Rainfall has declined by up to 30pc in the last 40 years and the Sahara is currently advancing at over a mile per year. The potential for conflict over disappearing pasture and evaporating water holes is huge. The southern Nuba tribe have warned they could restart the half-century war between North and South Sudan because Arab nomads (pushed into their territory by drought) are cutting down trees to feed their camels.The humanitarian crisis in Darfur, Sudan may be the canary in the coal mine for future conflicts sparked by competition for natural resources. Many people characterize the mass atrocities in Darfur as ethnic violence or genocide, but the conflict began over water. The Arab population of Southern Sudan was traditionally nomadic and for centuries coexisted with the Africans of South Sudan who were farmers. When desertification of the Sahel became more pronounced in recent decades, however, competition over scarce water and land led to rising conflict between the two groups. Without enough water to nourish the crops and the grasslands, neither group could survive. An abusive government was able to exploit this conflict, and, soon, the organized raids on villages began, escalating over the coming years into violence that has cost hundreds of thousands of lives and left millions displaced. While the violence in Darfur has complex political, economic, social, and ethnic dynamics, environmental changes were a critical driver of the conflict. 

SYRIA

As reviewed in a March 2012 report from the Center for Climate & Security titled “Syria: Climate Change, Drought and Social Unrest,” the current conflict in Syria has been linked to climate change. According to the hypothesis put forth by the authors of this report, climate change has caused internal displacement, rural disaffection and political unrest that ultimately contributed to the state of civil war we have today in Syria.“Syria’s current social unrest is, in the most direct sense, a reaction to a brutal and out-of-touch regime and a response to the political wave of change that began in Tunisia. However, that’s not the whole story.. If the international community, and future policy-makers in Syria, are to address and resolve the drivers of unrest in the country, these changes will have to be better explored and exposed.”

This research cites water shortages, drought, crop-failures and displacement as contributing factors to Syria’s civil war. Syria’s farmland has collapsed due to climate change. As explained in the report from 2006-2011, up to 60 percent of Syria suffered from “the worst long-term drought and most severe set of crop failures since agricultural civilizations began in the Fertile Crescent many millennia ago.” In the northeast and the south nearly 75 percent of crops failed. Herders in the northeast lost around 85 percent of their livestock, and 1.3 million people were directly impacted.

Over 800,000 Syrians have lost their entire livelihood as a result of the droughts. A total of one million Syrians were made “food insecure” and two to three million were driven to extreme poverty. Overuse of groundwater is seriously depleting the aquifer stocks which further complicates the issue. In response to these events, there has been a massive exodus of farmers, herders and agriculturally-dependent rural families from the countryside to the cities. In the farming villages around the city of Aleppo alone, 200,000 rural villagers left for the cities. The fact that the rural farming town of Dara’a was the focal point for protests in the early stages of the Syrian civil war illustrates how climate change induced drought was a central issue in the initial uprisings. Of course, there are other factors adding to Syrian instability, they include Influxes of Iraqi refugees which have added to the strains and tensions of an already stressed and disenfranchised population. Over-grazing of land and a rapidly growing population also compounded the land desertification process. However, climate does appear to have been a factor leading to the civil war we see in the country today.

Climate models predict that the situation in Syria will worsen as climate change impacts intensify. Yields of rain fed crops in the country are expected to decline between 29 and 57 percent from 2010 to 2050.It would appear that changes in the economic conditions caused by climate change are one of the main mechanisms at play. There may also be a physiological basis to the relationship between warming and conflict as higher temperatures appear to cause people to be more prone to aggression.

First steps to avoid climate conflict

To mitigate the effects of climate change we need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, thus cutting back harmful emissions. The emphasis must be on acting now rather than later: the longer we leave the situation the harder it will be to extricate ourselves from positive feedback loops and the spiralling effects of climate change.

New technology needs to be developed and then exported to developing countries who see fossil fuel dependence as a route to development but whose environments are being slowly destroyed as a result of the West’s dependence on these polluting fuels.

Secondly, we need to reconceptualise ‘security’. The threat of climate change is not one that can be met or managed through traditional military security. Armies cannot be amassed, barriers cannot be built and weapons cannot be deployed against a threat that is indiscriminate and global in its scope. We need to move towards the idea of ‘sustainable security’. ¹⁷

We need to look at tackling the root causes of climate change and conflict, instead of responding to the symptoms. As well as reducing our reliance on fossil fuels we need to reduce competition over resources and address the growing socio-economic divisions which are set to fuel environmental conflicts. Tackling the root causes of conflict and instability is much harder than responding to the symptoms, and requires cooperation among a much wider group of actors. But it will ultimately be more successful and will prevent the next few decades from being dominated by spiralling climate change and conflict.

Conclusion

Taken together, these reports provide irrefutable evidence that climatic events can increase social tensions and conflict. From the dawn of human civilization to the present the research shows a clear causal link between climate and strife. Climate change not only fans the flames of social tensions, it is a pivotal catalyst in the dynamics of conflict. Instead of focussing on environmental groups and tightening anti-terrorist laws, governments should be focussing on ways to both curb and mitigate the effects of climate change. Their attention should also turn to less developed countries, who stand to suffer the worst of climate change and who lack the capacity to be able to respond effectively. Climate change in less developed countries is not likely to lead to terrorism, but to conflict

By Osward Chishanga