The effects of climate change play out very differently in various contexts. Depending on the prevailing social, economic, and political conditions, as well as other key influential factors, some places and communities are more or less likely to see their security and living conditions severely affected by adverse climatic conditions.
The vulnerability of people and societies to extreme climatic events and changes is an important factor to consider in this context – economies relying heavily on rain-fed agriculture or pastoralism, for example, are more sensitive to climate change, and climate-related crises are more likely under such conditions. So are the resources that people and governments can mobilise in the wake of – or in preparation for – climatic shocks. People with assets and economic alternatives (e.g., to rain-fed agriculture), as well as governments that provide quality services and have effective contingency measures in place, generally fare better, both in terms of climate resilience and political stability.
Deep-rooted social inequalities and divides, on the other hand, make both people and societies more susceptible to climate-induced crises and security risks. Likewise, politically marginalised groups are not only more vulnerable to the effects of climate change, as they hold no influence over the institutions and mechanisms that are supposed to protect and support them, but they are also more likely to hold political grievances and resentment that can be exploited by extremist groups.
The relevance of these factors for the climatesecurity nexus becomes evident when looking at the growing empirical literature that study their effects. Reviewing more than 150 studies published over the past 23 years, we identify key social, political, legal, economic, environmental, demographic, and military-strategic factors that shape climate-security dynamics in different contexts across the globe. We further highlight a number of empirical results to inform a nuanced perspective on the connection between climatic stress and human security.
Based on our review, we make the following recommendations for addressing the security implications of climate change:
• There are many ways for safeguarding peace and stability from climate impacts, beyond climate mitigation. Levers in different sectors need to be pulled in combination to minimise the security risks that climate change entails.
• Prevention of climate-related security risks must emphasise the most vulnerable and marginalised communities in terms of economic opportunities, social status, access to services, and influence on political processes. Investing in the agency, capacity, and safety of these communities will go a long way in making societies more resilient and stable overall.
• Effective, inclusive, and coherent institutional mechanisms are key for managing security challenges in connection with climate change, degraded environments, and maladaptive responses. Investing in such mechanisms is crucial as climatic conditions are deteriorating in many places – and will continue to do so for a considerable time, even if climate mitigation efforts become much more ambitious.
• Climate change adaptation has an important role to play in the prevention of climate-related security risks. Particular emphasis must be placed on climate adaptation in fragile countries and in contexts where prevailing social challenges are most likely to be exacerbated by climate change.
• Climate finance will need to scale up and become more aware of its social impact – and hence responsibility – in receiving areas. This will require context- and conflict-sensitive approaches to avoid backdraft – that is, situations where risk reduction measures inadvertently aggravate social and environmental vulnerabilities.
• Lastly, and more generally, discussions on climate and security need to evolve and overcome dichotomous thinking. The connection between climate and security is not a matter of “yes” or “no”, but rather of “where” and “under what conditions”. Moving forward, discussions need to emphasise the interaction between social and environmental drivers of fragility and pay more attention to locally led research and expertise from around the world.
This is an executive summary of the full report by Wheathering Risk, an interdisciplinary project team at adelphi and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). The full report can be found here.