The Tensions are High and so are the Temperatures: Conflict and Climate Change, are they related?

By Daisy How

Between 2005 and 2010, Syria experienced its worst drought in recorded history, and this coupled with the surge of Iraqi refugees to destabilise the Assad government and contribute to a rise in the Islamic State [source]. Many different arguments are proposed explaining this chain of events, but little of them consider the role that scarcity and migration played.

What this highlights is that the nexus between conflict and climate change is more prevalent, and at times more subtle, then scientists often see. While people have argued that the connection between climate change and conflict is overinflated, there are a lot of sources of violence and conflict which are subconsciously fuelled by changes in the weather. Terrorism, gender-based violence and, in more extreme cases, civil war could all be a consequence of climate change.

In Africa, the rise in conflicts has been widely observed, with the question most commonly asked: What role does climate change play in causing this? The areas most affected by climate change are East Africa and West Africa just below the Sahel [source]. Lake Chad, which borders four west African countries and was the sixth largest freshwater lake in the 1960s, was a commercial centre for those who farmed or fished around it. In 2018, satellite images show this shrinking to half its size due to rising temperatures and desertification and has turned this haven into a tough force of nature [source].

Towns near the lake have been overrun by conflict, forcing people to migrate to other regions or enter refugee camps due to their displacement. While religion and government can be seen as the main factor driving this conflict, the changing landscape is also important. The scarcity of fresh water meant people crowded together in places where the lake was still a viable water source. As people congregated and fought for access, conflict was fuelled [source]. When people are in extreme situations, they turn to extreme behaviour. Amnesty International, for example, calculated that around 3600 people died of conflicts between farmers and herders, largely as a result to scarcity created by climate change [source].

These dire situations that people are put into, as well as this constant movement of populations has created unease and vulnerability. Climate change and worsening conditions creates a continuous cycle of violence and has been the source of growing terrorist forces. In Kenya [source], pastoralists have turned to violence such as raiding livestock during the dry months, which are tough periods which have been made even worse by climate change. Non-state actors can encourage this behaviour and can use local conflicts, like in Kenya, to weaken governments and delegitimise them. As states fail to allocate and provide scarce resources, terrorist groups such as Al Shabaab and Naxalite rebels will use coercive and violent tactics to ensure their fair share of resources [source]. This was also seen in Thailand, where restrictions on rice led non-state actors to attack local farmers of rice fields [source].

As seen throughout history in times of undesirable living conditions, such with the Nazi Party and Mao’s Communist Party, people are more likely to turn to alternative or more extreme options in times of desperation. In a sense, this is what is being seen with climate change and the rise in conflict, people who are desperate for food and basic resources are more susceptible for recruitment into terrorist groups.

Once again, this demonstrates that climate change and the extreme pressures it creates on individuals’ livelihoods will become an underlying source of so much conflict and violence. Of course, it can be said that in areas of increasing conflict and terrorism a government which is unable to instil an effective economic or political policy is more at fault, climate change is still that catalyst that pushes these issues to escalate.

However, some people still find the nexus between climate change and conflict unconvincing. In many situations, they would argue, climate change has worsened but conflict has not. Consider the example of Darfur, an area in the Sahel, which has been seen bouts of violent clashes followed by war in 2003. The common idea is that the fall in rainfall in the 1970s drove this rise in conflict, and yet there was period of three decades between the start of the drought and the start of war [source]. Similarly, studies contradicting the common conception on conflict in Kenya, mentioned earlier, have shown that violence actually increases during periods of abundant grazing and stable weather. This is for the simple reason that hungry people do not have the energy to fight [source].

Then you can also look at the places where conflict hasn’t occurred and yet climate change has had its impact. The drought before the Syrian Civil War, for example, also hit Cyprus, Lebanon and Georgia and no considerable levels of conflict have been recorded there [source]. The Pacific Ocean islands, Venice and Netherlands have been hit by rising sea levels through events like flooding, and yet the possibility for conflict to emerge there is nearly not considered.

People who criticise this concept, therefore, of climate change and conflict are not entirely wrong. But in a way, they miss the major point that is being made. With many places already under unstable governments or hotspots for terrorist networks, extreme changes in climate are more than enough to push that country or area into conflict. Climate change does not guarantee conflict but exacerbates it. As many more people see their livelihood or their basic human resources diminish it’s only natural for them to get angrier and more frustrated, suddenly their neighbours become their competition and the government becomes the source of their insecurity. This then presents a somewhat chicken and egg scenario, do you work to stop climate change in order to prevent people turning towards violent measures regardless of the country it is in, or do you stabilise governments and create effective policy in order to stop conflict erupting throughout the inevitability of climate change?