|
Climate Change: A Cause of Conflict?
The environmental consequences of climate change are
now firmly on the political and public agenda. The
security consequences are not. Little attention has been
given to the possibility of increased conflict due to
resources scarcity and migration. Is conflict the real
threat from climate change?
By Kate Johnston
In
April 2007, 55 delegations to the UN met at the Security
Council to discuss the security implications of climate
change. Led by the then UK Foreign Secretary, Margaret
Beckett, states shared their concerns about the security
implications of climate change. UN Secretary General Ban
Ki-moon talked of scarce resources, fragile ecosystems
and severe strains placed on the coping mechanisms of
groups and individuals, potentially leading to “a
breakdown of established codes of conduct, and even
outright conflict”. [1]
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 will all take their toll on the global
system as a whole.
Some western governments are concerned that these
conditions will create an unstable world and may lead to
a subsequent rise in terrorist activity. What is more
likely, I argue, is a potential rise in conflict in the
most environmentally and politically vulnerable states.
International Alert, a peace-building organisation, has
identified 61 countries they perceive as being at risk
from the ‘double-headed’ risk of climate change and
conflict. [2]
This article will specifically examine the potential
rise in three types of conflict as a result of climate
change:
-
Political violence
-
Inter-communal violence
-
Interstate warfare
This article does not argue that climate change will
directly cause conflict in the future. It argues that
the environment (as a result of climate change) will
become a more prominent factor in the outbreak of
conflict.
Changes in the environment alone will not result in
conflict. They need to be combined with existing
divisions within society, be they ethnic, nationalist or
religious. As Idean Salehyan [3] argues, there is much
more to armed conflict than resource scarcity and
natural disasters. However, that doesn’t mean that
resources and changes in the environment should be
excluded as potential factors in the outbreak of
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.
The likelihood of increased terrorism
There are a number of reasons why it is unlikely that
climate change will lead to an increase in terrorist
activity, at least in the short-term. Firstly, terrorism
tends to be a response to a perceived and visible
injustice committed by a tangible group or government
against a particular group of people. In addition,
individuals or groups tend to resort to violence if
other avenues are unavailable or perceived as not
working.
Environmental change will be difficult to attribute to a
specific group of people or a state, and the changes
will take place over such a timescale that they won’t be
instantly visible. This may not stop organisations and
states from being targeted, however those involved may
merely want to bring attention to issues, knowing that
they will not be able to solve the problem through
violent action.
Secondly, varied and diverse aims of groups affected by
climate change make organised international
terrorism as a response to climate change is highly
unlikely. The actions of a group in the Middle East
campaigning for access to water will be unlikely to
improve the situation for those suffering severe
flooding in Asia. If terrorism and civil unrest do occur
they are likely to be on a local, perhaps regional
scale.
Ecoterrorism
There is a possibility that the sub strand of terrorism
known as ecoterrorism may increase as a result of
climate change.
Defined by the FBI as “the use or threatened use of
violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims
or property by an environmentally-orientated, sub
national group for environmental-political reasons” [6],
ecoterrorism was identified as one of the top domestic
terror threats in the US in 2005.
[7]
Since 1996 the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the
Earth Liberation Front (ELF) have committed over 600
criminal acts in the US, resulting in damages exceeding
$43 million.
There always tend to be extremist groups at the fringes
of special interest movements, but there is little
evidence ecoterrorism is spreading further than the US.
In the UK, protests against the expansion of Heathrow
airport in August 2007 were mainly peaceful and only a
handful of arrests were made.
Although the frequency and intensity of ‘ecoterrorist’
protests may increase it is unlikely that we will see
terrorism as a result of climate change on a scale of
the Irish nationalist or radical Islamist terrorism the
UK has previously known. The links between climate
change and terrorism are tenuous at best.
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.
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. [8]
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.
Darfur
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, 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.” [10]
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. [11]
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. In Tripura, 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.
3)
Interstate warfare
Environmental-based conflict can also erupt as a result
of competition over an abundance of a commercially
valuable resource located in a particular area.
Resources are not distributed evenly and do not follow
internal or external boundaries and resource-based
conflict can happen between states as well as within
them.
61pc of the world’s proven oil reserves, for example,
are currently located in the Middle East, but almost all
of the developed countries in the world rely on this oil
to meet their energy needs. [12] As countries rely
increasingly on Gulf oil supplies, the chances of
regional conflict involving both local and international
actors will increase. The US in particular, will go to
great lengths in order to secure a continuing supply of
oil.
Conflict over resources is not confined to oil, however.
‘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. [13] 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. [14]
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. [15]
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.
Forewarned is forearmed
This article paints a grim picture of disputes over
precious resources, the erosion of fragile ecosystems
and a world dominated by conflict. The real question to
ask is not how likely is this to happen, but what can we
do to prevent it happening and how can we mitigate the
effects.
Margaret Beckett, then UK Foreign Secretary, argued in a
speech at the Royal United Services Institute that in
the world of military security, planners prepare for the
worst-case scenario; they don’t wait to see what might
happen.
[16]
The same approach is required for climate change.
Preparing for the security implications of climate
change means both acting to make these events less
likely and also strengthening state capacity to deal
with the effects.
This doesn’t mean (as some analysts have suggested)
adopting a ‘fortress mentality’, shoring up our borders
and increasing our defensive capacity, but instead
focusing on ways in which resources can be effectively
managed and distributed.
We
also need to ensure that the socio-economic resilience
of those states most vulnerable to the direct effects of
climate change is strengthened and that the global
system as a whole is prepared for potentially huge
global changes. The meeting at the UN held in April was
a step in the right direction. Climate change needs to
be permanently placed on the UN’s agenda. Many states in
attendance were in support of the Security Council
addressing the issues, citing Resolution 1625, concerned
with the prevention of armed conflict, in support of the
meeting.
Many more states, particularly the powerful and
developed nations, need to be convinced of the
importance of the issue and to act on climate change
before it creates global conflict. The irony of climate
change is that although the more developed states are
the main polluters, less developed states will suffer
most and have the least capacity to respond effectively
to climate change. Many already suffer from poverty,
resource scarcity, health crises and
ethnic/religious/national tensions and are dependent on
the natural environment. These factors make them more
prone to conflict as a result of climate change and
lessen their ability to adapt to environmental change.
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.
References
[1]
SC/9000, 5663rd Meeting (AM & PM) http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/sc9000.doc.htm.
[2] Dan Smith, The Double-Headed risk of Climate Change
and Armed Conflict (International Alert, March 2007),
http://www.international-alert.org/press/article.php?id=128.
[3] Idean Salehyan, The New Myth About Climate Change
(Foreign Policy, August 2007) , http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3922
[4] National Security and the Threat of Climate Change,
(CNA Corporation, 2007), p.17.
[5] Ibid.
[6] The Threat of Eco-Terrorism, testimony of James F.
Jarboe, Domestic Terrorism Section Chief,
Counterterrorism Division, Federal Bureau of
Investigation, before the House Resources Committee,
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health (12 February
2002), http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/jarboe021202.htm
[7] Oversight on Eco-terrorism specifically examining
the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and the Animal
Liberation Front (ALF), statement of John Lewis, Deputy
Assistant Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation (18
May 2005), http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=237817.
[8] Peter Shwartz and Doug Randall, An Abrupt Climate
Change Scenario and its implication for United States
National Security (Global Business Network, 2003)
[9] Ibid.
[10] Josh Braun, “A Hostile Climate? Did Global Warming
cause a Resource War in Darfur?”, Seed Magazine (2
August 2006), http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2006/08/a_hostile_climate.php.
[11]Julian Borger, op cit.
[12] Chris Abbott, Paul Rogers and John Sloboda, Beyond
Terror: The Truth About the Real Threats to Our World
(Rider, 2007), p.34.
[13] Peter Shwartz and Doug Randall, op cit.
[14] RUSI Homeland Security and Resilience Monitor,
Vol.6, No.4, pp.12-13 (May 2007).
[15] International Crisis Group, Climate Change and
Conflict (July 2007), http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=4932.
[16] The Case for Climate Security, lecture by the
Foreign Secretary the Rt. Hon. Margaret Beckett MP,
Royal United Services Institute (10 May 2007),
http://www.rusi.org/events/past/ref:E464343E93D15A
/info:public/infoID:E4643430E3E85A/.
[17] Chris Abbott, Paul Rogers and John Sloboda, op cit. |
