Image by jstor.org
This article seeks to examine the connection between climate change and conflict through various examples regarding climate change induced conflict, and various studies which have reviewed the effects of climate change on conflict. Various international law principles and conventions which address the issue are also discussed.
A survey conducted by five researchers which was published in the Journal of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, found the drought in Syria to be climate-change driven. The drought also occurred in the context of civil unrest in Syria, where the government action to alleviate the ramifications of the unrest was inadequate and the Syrian refugee crisis was worsening conditions in the region. This drought significantly reduced the capacity of Syria to provide its citizens with food, and thus contributed, at least, indirectly to the exacerbation of the Syrian crisis.
A research paper published in the journal Nature further consolidates the view that climate change does influence conflict in various States. The reasons which the experts have cited in their studies strengthen the contention that although climate change does not directly affect conflict risks, when it does intervene, it tends to exacerbate the conflict. The most influential factors of conflicts according to the experts surveyed in the above-mentioned study are low socio-economic development, low state capability, economic shocks, intergroup inequality, among others. These factors do not directly provide a link between climate change and conflict risks, but it is conceivable to see how, these risks, if coupled with a worsening climate can exacerbate conflict. Low socio-economic development would make the citizenry of the country dependent on state welfare mechanisms in order to satisfy their basic needs. When a climate change event (like drought, hurricanes, extreme heat or precipitation) occurs, the State may become inept in supplying the needs of the impoverished citizens. This would further result in an increase in practices like hoarding of stock, larceny of goods from those with a surplus, and potentially conflicts between the haves and the have-nots. Climate-change induced shortages in resources like food can also skew the harmonious balance of the society and create an economic situation where the prices of these resources skyrocket. This shortage incentivised violence among people and negatively altered long-term socio-economic development, both of which led to conflict. There are ample examples of such occurrences throughout the world. In 2012, Malawi witnessed an acute food insecurity crisis. This was brought about by a drought which made cultivation impossible. Livestock and human populations were razed down which brought a sense of unrest within the country. Coupled with the lack of any assistance from the government, the shortage of food led to a stark increase in theft, looting and armed conflicts.
Another way in which climate change can ignite conflict is the shortage of essential resources in states where the population is heavily dependent on such resources. In a meeting of the UN Security Council held on 17 April 2007, the Council contemplated for the first time, the implications of climate change on global security. It was natural that many delegates objected to the subject of the deliberation since they thought that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) or the Economic and Social Council would be a more apt forum for discussion and stated that the primary goal of the Council was to promote global peace and security. Papua New Guinea’s delegate responded by pointing out the plight of states which depend on natural resources for their own maintenance and for the upkeep of their economies. The important consideration here is that many nations depend on natural resources in their country, and these nations will find it unfeasible to carry on daily life activities in the absence of these resources. Climate change in Africa, small island nations and Asian countries can have a potentially havoc-wreaking effect since these countries are vulnerable to climate extremities, low adaptive capacity, and multiple stresses.
In a report entitled “A New Climate for Peace”, seven risks have been mentioned. They are: local resource competition, livelihood insecurity, extreme weather events and disasters, volatile food prices, transboundary water management, sea-level rise and coastal degradation, and unintended effects of climate policies. Local resource competition entails a lopsided balance in demand and supply. Some resources may be limited, but demanded highly in a given area. This disparity can worsen conflict situations in various ways, including hoarding of goods by parties to the conflict resulting in the unavailability of those resources to the general public, or violence induced by parties to a conflict (as was seen in the example of Malawi in 2012). Livelihood insecurity can mean loss of sources of livelihood, as a result of, say, an extreme flooding caused due to increase in sea-level due to global warming. It might wipe out the resources on which the community depends to sustain itself, or can cause loss of jobs, and might ultimately result in increased risk of conflict. Volatile food prices cause a vital means of sustenance to be out of reach for people and that too can lead to violent conflicts. In some cases, food insecurity has been weaponized to create adverse conditions for opponents and civilian populations by warring parties. Many conflict zones are present along rivers which have been disputed by states. In Somalia, in the face of frequent droughts and no water, locals are forced to sell their livestock at sub-par prices and as a result face economic hardship. They turn to militia like Al-Shabaab, which provides them with money and forces them to engage in armed conflict. Thus, reduced precipitation as a result of climate change can potentially influence conflict.
Double vulnerability is another significant phenomenon when we discuss climate change and its relation with conflict. Double vulnerability is dual risk which a demography faces due to its climatic conditions and ongoing conflicts. Vulnerability is created in and by society and risk refers to the vulnerability caused due to exposure to factors which create risks in the absence of coping methods (Wisner et. Al, 2002, in the book “At Risk: Natural Hazards, Peoples Vulnerability and Disasters). Thus, this exposure to risk coupled with factors mentioned above (low socio-economic development, low state capability, economic shocks, intergroup inequality) create heightened risk of conflict. It is often the case that those conflicts which are worsened due to vulnerabilities caused by climate conditions are also those which occur within a State which have little or no coping mechanisms to alleviate these risks. Under States which are capable of mitigating these deleterious consequences, relief measures seek to negate the negative effects, thus pacifying the situation to an extent. Thus, States which are at heightened risks due to the above-mentioned reasons are bound to experience high rates of conflict.
Despite the recognition that climate can affect conflict, no international treaty (see 2.2.4 “Conclusion”) has yet been made to explicitly and specifically address the risks posed by climate change to conflict-stricken areas. There are certain provisions which mention the relation between climate change and conflict. Principle 25 of the Rio Declaration states, “Peace, development and environmental protection are interdependent and indivisible”. It recognizes that environmental protection is important when it comes to resolving a conflict. This principle does not have legally binding force, and as such is unenforceable, but it is still recognized as a guiding principle in determining the essence of the declaration. Reference may also be made to widely recognised established principles of international law which indirectly attempt to cure climate change, which in turn reduces to some extent the risk of conflict. Although, the application of these principles may seem far-fetched, the effect that the application of the principles may indirectly contribute to reducing conflict risks, insofar as they are climate induced. The prevention principle mandates that every State must take such measures as to disallow any activity which harms the environment of another state, unless the damage is proved to be insignificant. It was first developed in the 1941 Trail Smelter case (United States v. Canada) and has now achieved the status of a binding principle of Customary International Law through a series of inclusions in various treaties, and through a report of the International Court of Justice. The principle must be adhered to universally for it to be effective, since non-compliance could mean deterioration of climate, and exacerbation of conflict. The principle also has tangential application insofar as it does not relate to a specific state, but rather shifts the burden to neighboring states. It also has not been interpreted to include consequences such as conflict which result from breach of the rule, but it is hoped that the court expands the interpretation to recognize these effects. The precautionary principle mentions that a State must not undertake any activity without conducting an environmental impact assessment, and if the assessment results show that the harm caused would not be worth it, the activity must not be executed. Thus, this creates an obligation on States to take reasonable precautions to prevent environmental damage. It is time that the international community recognized the impact that climate change has on conflict and took steps to mitigate the effects of the same.
This article has been authored by Vineet Jadhav, a first year student at Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur.