Post
Climate Change, Conflict and Migration – What is the Big Picture?
It is well understood that climate change may undermine human security by reducing access to essential natural resources. This may in turn result in violent conflict and migration.
Regardless of the precise nature and size of the changes, they will primarily affect poor countries. We can expect more armed conflict in areas with high population density and water scarcity. This trend of frequent, violent conflict may not apply that much to the usual suspect – Sub-Saharan Africa, but more to countries in the Middle East and Central Asia, as well as areas in India and China.
The main concern remains that environmental migration can promote conflict. In this respect climate change is viewed as a “push” factor for migration when communities are not able to adapt to it.
More worryingly, most of the conflicts will embed environmental induced conflict under the guise of religious, ethnic of civil strife. This makes guerilla wars and export of terrorism more likely.
So what should we do to decrease the security risks associated with environmental conflict and migration?
There are many things that can and must be done. First, we need to focus more on investigating the causal links between environmental pressures and conflict. We need also more understanding and cooperation among international political actors and stakeholders. One such important initiative that promoted understanding and negotiations was the CNAS Climate Change War Game.
Apart from better understanding the problem itself, we need to focus on policy measures such as:
- Improving predictive climate models;
- Building comprehensive predictive models of the potential impacts of abrupt climate change on food, water, and energy;
- Creating vulnerability metrics to anticipate which countries are most vulnerable to climate change;
- Identifying no-regrets strategies such as enhancing capabilities for water management;
- Exploring local implications of climate change.
On a more practical level we should also:
- Encourage people to move out of flood plains and assist them with relocation costs;
- Improve shelters to prevent damage during severe weather events;
- Improve disaster preparedness and response strategies;
- Develop local resources for sustainable agriculture, including new plant varieties and robust storage facilities.
In general we also need to understand and show to the world how social capital builds resilience against the risks of climate change.
And yes, the US and the EU should lead in fostering a global agreement on climate change. It is literally in our best common interest.
Comments
Well written, it made me think of one of my favourite blogs: http://www.cominganarchy.com That is one of those places I love to visit, even though I seldom agree with what they write.
I agree fully with all your conclusions, though. This kind of conflicts might easily spill over in ethnic conflicts - therefore we have a great responsibility to explain to those affected that it is the climate that is changing when the well runs dry, not their neighbours that steal the water
Thanks, Daniel. It is very important to keep in mind that behind climatic events there are human tragedies in the making.
Today policymakers face a lifetime challenge - and their actions will be evaluated in a historical perspective.
Interesting post, Vihar. Especially since it’s full of links I don’t think I’ve clicked before even though migration caused by environmental crisis is something I’ve blogged about before
But you are a bit fast on your conclusions. Like “Encourage people to move out of flood plains and assist them with relocation costs” - how about the Nile delta about to disappear but producing most of Egypts food. Where will the food come from then? Where will the people go? Who will pay?
Benno, I agree that relocation cannot be a one-size-fits-all policy. As with any policy measure we have to balance costs and benefits. I am only listing it here because IF floods intensify to a level that makes habitation impossible, we should get people out of there.
In fact some say that in the case of New Orleans no new system of levees will be able to prevent a new hurricane disaster:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17040-levees-wont-save-new-orleans-from-another-katrina.html
Vihar… as I listen to the news this morning, this topic seems more relevant than ever, as the floods in the Phillipines are followed by the drought in eastern africa. Where will these people go for now? And if natural catastrophes become normal, will we have streams of migration that never stop, moving from one catastrophe to the other?
Daniel, you have to take two things into account:
1. Floods and drought have happened in the past and will happen again. That is why in any case it is very important to improve the adaptive capacity of communities and nations. The problem is that climate change will very likely exacerbate such events. That is why it is essential to finance climate change adaptation programs in poor countries.
2. Human action is limited by many factors. Policymakers have to take into account various such limitations, including budget constraints, public sentiment, etc. When we put climate change in a political perspective, we should, however, consider security risks and humanitarian implications. I think that today Western politician understand more clearly the real security threats stemming from climate change. I am afraid to say that compassion is not among the main political concerns, though.
I am afraid you are right… Of course flooding has always happened, it is not a new problem, but it might intensify.
I guess draught is a bigger problem in this context - when people can not continue to live like they used to, they will be uprooted.
But I think also Benno has a point. The biggest problem is not that people move, but that fertile lands are destoryed, like the Nile delta.
In deed, policymaking is limited by the factors you mention. And isn’t it a little ridiculous how difficult it is to bolster action for climate action, poverty and ecological issues, when you see how rapid the response was to the financial crisis? For sure, our banks are important, but drinkable water is even more important.
I guess shortsightedness is one of democracy’s really big problems, but we have to live with it. “It’s a useless system but the best we have”, as Churchill said.
The short-sightedness of democracy is arguable, because you need metrics to compare it to something else. In any case my deep conviction is that the human action can be best coordinated by a democratic political process.
And there is clear negative correlation between parliamentary powers and state failure risk:
http://www.takebackpakistan.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/upper_graphic.gif
Yes, I hope you didn’t misunderstand me. My point is that democracy is shortsighted compared to an ideal situation.
But compared to other ways of government, democracy is not only moral, but also more efficient, as history has proven.
Yes, we share the same values