Ecological threats to peace
A Look at the 2020 Ecological Threat Register and the Connection Between Conflict and Climate Change
Raging wildfires in Australia and the United States, locust plagues in the Horn of Africa and Mediterranean cyclones are only some of the natural disasters that set 2020 apart as an unusually severe year for environmental catastrophes. It is becoming increasingly important to understand how the effects of climate change can and will affect state and regional stability. The Ecological Threat Register (ETR), produced by the Institute for Economics and Peace, shows the relationship between ecological threats and state institutional resilience in remarkable detail. USIP hosted a panel of experts to discuss the report’s findings.
Sagal Abshir: Non-Resident Fellow, Center on International Cooperation, New York University
Michael Collins: Executive Director, Institute for Economics & Peace
Dr. Joseph Hewitt: Vice President for Policy, Learning and Strategy, U.S. Institute of Peace
Dr. Catherine-Lune Grayson: Policy Advisor, International Committee of the Red Cross
Tyler Beckelman, (moderator): Director, International Partnerships, U.S. Institute of Peace
Natural Disasters Not the Primary Risk
The report’s findings were grim. As reported by Michael Collins, by 2050 it is predicted that 6.5 billion people will be exposed to high-intensity ecological threats. The 19 most exposed countries are home to 2.1 billion people. It is also estimated that 1.2 billion (an astounding one out of five) people risk displacement due to ecological disasters by that same year. The regions most at risk include the Sahel region, Southern Africa and the Middle East/Central Asia.
Ecological threats were grouped into the following categories: resource scarcity, food security, water stress, and natural disasters. Of these categories, water stress was found to be the most impactful, potentially affecting up to 2.6 billion people. How will these stresses affect global stability?
State Fragility and Climate Change: the Perfect Storm?
The unfortunate reality, as Collins describes, is that many of the states most at risk are also the least capable of addressing these threats. Lack of robust government institutions, financial resources, and conflict-free environments mean that these states are more prone to collapse, even if ecological threats are not as severe as those of more developed countries. To make matters worse, many of the least peaceful states are also the most prone to ecological threats.
Abshir corroborated these findings with her own experience in the Horn of Africa. She reports that climate change is causing regional instability. Unpredictable precipitation causes many farmers to lose their livelihoods, making them more susceptible to radicalization. In addition, she reports that conflict and climate change are self-reinforcing. For instance, the conflict in Yemen inhibits locust-control measures usually present in peacetime. The resulting swell in locust swarms causes economic devastation on both sides of the Persian Gulf, fueling further conflict.
State Resilience: Embracing Complexity
Grayson suggests that part of the problem lies in many of these states’ inability to take preventive measures. Instead, they are locked in reactive policies that do not address the heart of climate change issues. She advocates for a human security-styled approach, involving academics, politicians, the private sector, economic development specialists, and more. All three of the speakers agreed that well-functioning governments are absolutely essential, in addition to diversifying strategies of state resilience. Abshir noted that, as part of an effective plan for state resilience, more attention must be devoted to addressing climate change on a regional level, not just state-by-state. Grayson aptly concludes that tackling state resilience to climate change requires complex solutions and that embracing complexity may mitigate the chaos caused by ecological threats.
To watch the event in full, click here.
RSS - Posts
