Conflict, the Climate, and Cows: Framing SDG 16 in the Context of Climate Change
By: Advocacy
Tags: Agriculture, Peacebuilding, Climate Change

By Tess Turner, UNA-NCA Advocacy Fellow

A Massai woman in Kenya with her cattle | Ton Koene, National Geographic

Northern Kenya, riddled with insecurity, poverty, and violence, provides a new angle to understand global conflicts — one that centers around cows. In Kenya, cows are a form of currency. Located within the “pastoralist corridor,” this region in northern Kenya is too arid to farm, but it can be grazed. As a result, this area is populated by nomadic and semi-nomadic tribes whose livelihoods are dependent on their cattle herds. While cattle has traditionally been a stable form of currency, violence and cattle raids have increasingly decimated Kenya’s herding population.

There is no simple explanation to understand the prevalence of violence in northern Kenya: state failure, corruption, and the post-WWII demarcation of borders that merged two conflicting tribes, the Turkana and the Pokot, all play a part. But the impact of climate change cannot be ignored. The desertification of the area, marked by long droughts and flash flooding, has made it difficult to maintain herds. This resource strain has exacerbated violence in the region, causing young men to raid neighboring towns to restore dwindling herd sizes.

Climate and climate-related conflicts have forced many farmers to abandon their traditional livelihood as well. In northern Kenya, adverse climate conditions have already forced one-third of herders (around half a million people) to abandon their pastoral way of life. Populations in this region are particularly vulnerable to climate shocks because for them, cattle represent financial stability. The intersection of poverty, state failure, and extreme weather have produced what scholar Christain Parenti labels a “political economy of violence,” arguing that the current cattle system in Kenya has created links between pastoralists, illegal militias, crime groups, states, markets, and the climate. Considering current climate predictions, climate conflict in places like northern Kenya is only likely to worsen.

Linking Climate Change and Conflict

While state failure and violence in Kenya have unique conditions, the lessons present a wary prediction about the future of global conflict and climate change. There’s a developing body of research demonstrating an inextricable link between conflict and climate change. The relationship is partially explained through economics — droughts and heat waves make agriculture and pastoralism yields drop, and this, in turn, can cause economic downturn, political turmoil, and societal unrest. Another cause is migration, which often increases after economic downturn and severe climate events. Migration frequently produces political and social instability. Those who did not flee their countries are left to rebuild a dramatically changed environmental, political, and social landscape, and those who do successfully migrate often have to navigate new countries with rising anti-migrant tensions. Climate disaster does not guarantee conflict — it acts as a threat multiplier. War and violence are an aggregation of the worst effects of climate change.

There are clear historical linkages between global conflicts and climate that suggest that environmental disasters enhance armed-conflict risks. One comprehensive study found conflict outbreaks robustly coincide with climate-related disasters in conflict-prone regions. Civil wars erupted in more than two-thirds of the countries in sub-Saharan Africa in the post-war era, with warmer years coinciding with significant increases in the likelihood of war. Historical analyses, when combined with global heating trends, have harrowing predictions for the future. Trends suggest that by 2030, there will be a 54% increase in armed conflict in the region. If the death tolls stay consistent, this would result in an additional 393,000 deaths. Other studies have found that for every half degree of warming globally, societies will see a 10 to 20 percent increase in the likelihood of armed conflict. Even if the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement were met and nations managed to limit warming to two degrees, which is not likely to happen, this research suggests there would still be a significant increase in conflict and a 40–80 percent increased risk of war globally.

Rising Tensions with Non-State Actors and Migrants

Another concern is the potential for instability and the rise of non-state armed groups (NSAGs) who are able to capitalize upon the fragility and economic duress produced by climate change. Climate change produces food and water insecure countries and regions, making population groups more vulnerable. NSAGs are more likely to radicalize and recruit affected populations by offering alternative livelihoods and economic incentives while also addressing other political or social concerns. NSAGs have also been increasingly weaponizing natural resources by monopolizing and limiting access to scarce resources like water, increasing their power and exacerbating unrest.

Non-state actors, like ISIS or the Taliban, can leverage natural resources against the state or the local population. ISIS took advantage of the conflict and water insecurity that arose after a five-year drought devastated Syria beginning in 2007 — they were able to expand their influence as the civil war raged on, establishing social services, irrigation projects, and clean water provision services which helped them recruit more easily among populations that felt neglected by the lack of resource provision or aid by the state. ISIS also weaponized water by closing the gates to dams to more easily attack oppositional forces. In these cases, climate change is not the sole cause of conflict but serves to exacerbate instability and create situations that are trouble spots for violence.

Climate change-induced migration, whether as a result of natural disasters or climate-related violence, has increased significantly in the past decades. This is especially true in countries that are more reliant on the environment for livelihoods. Over half of the populations in Africa and Asia are employed in agriculture, and as a result these areas are more vulnerable to climate-related shocks. In these regions, people often choose to escape the severe effects of weather events, fleeing to different regions and countries in search of safety and opportunity. Storms, floods, and droughts in Bangladesh pushed 12–17 million Bangladeshis to move to India, while half a million moved to a different region within the country.

Climate change-induced migration can promote conflict in areas receiving migrants because the influx of a new populus heightens competition and can produce worsened ethnic tensions and distrust. Whether conflict occurs depends on the environmental changes, dependence on the environment for livelihood, resource availability, population density, order structures, and sociopolitical fault lines; however, it is clear that climate change is producing a new population of climate refugees and climate migrants, creating new and worsening opportunities for conflict and unrest.

Contextualizing SDG 16 and Climate Change

Even on an interpersonal level, climate and rising temperatures worsen conflict. Heat increases violent crime rates, the length of time drivers honk their horns in frustration, and even swearing on social media. Heat has been proved to exacerbate personal irritability, domestic violence, and individual conflicts. Beyond warming effects, other climate issues such as air pollution hold implications for conflict and crime; a 2018 study of 9,000 American cities discovered air pollution levels positively predicted incidents of every single crime category they looked at — from car theft and burglary and larceny up to assault, rape, and murder. Growing crime rates can worsen social stability and unrest too, serving as one of a litany of potential sources behind intra- and inter-state conflict.

The implications? For peacekeeping institutions like the UN, climate change has to be a priority moving forward. The first and foremost goal of SDG 16 sets out to “significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere.” While the goal tends to focus on factors such as corruption, economic insecurity, and weak institutions as important metrics to target in order to promote peace, there is another factor that is often overlooked: the climate. While climate change is represented by other SDGs, particularly 13, 14, and 15, the links between climate change and conflict demonstrate how the SDG themes are fundamentally interconnected and therefore must be addressed as such.

Anti-violence goals cannot be met without addressing the pressing issues of climate change. As the linkages between worsening climate change and violence are becoming more clear, it is imperative that endeavors to build stability and peace must seek to redress climate concerns. Whether that be proactively, by achieving emissions reductions and preventing further climate change disasters, or mitigating vulnerable areas with aid and resources, climate change events such as heat waves, droughts, floods, or natural disasters should be monitored as the threats they are.