Tobias Ide

Violent climate or climate of violence? Concepts and relations with focus on Kenya and Sudan

Addressing deficits of current research on the link between climate change and violent conflict, this article aims to contribute to a more systematic understanding of the violence concept in the context of environmental change. We present a theoretical framework and potential pathways between climate change and violence and an agent-based approach to assess the interplay between capabilities and motivations for violence and the conditions for conflicting or cooperative interactions. Acting as a ‘threat multiplier’, climate change could exceed adaptive capacities and undermine the livelihoods of communities. In the most affected regions, the erosion of social order and state failure as well as already ongoing violent conflicts could be aggravated, leading to a spiral of violence that further dissolves societal structures. Against this background we analyse case studies in Kenya and Sudan, focusing on factors driving or preventing a spiral of violence. While interpastoral conflicts in north-western Kenya result in limited numbers of casualties, the Darfur conflict has been shaped by the civil war in Sudan, involving the government, rebel forces and militias, causing significant loss of lives and destruction. The impact of climate change is less direct in Sudan than in Kenya. To avoid a spiral of violence, in both cases it is essential to reduce socio-economical marginalisation, develop resource-sharing mechanisms and restrain access to arms as part of long-term strategies for a sustainable and peaceful intervention to contain the adverse impacts of climate change.

On climate, conflict and cumulation: suggestions for integrative cumulation of knowledge in the research on climate change and violent conflict

Possible links between climate change and intra-state violent conflict have received major scholarly attention in recent years. But with few exceptions there is still a low level of consensus in this research field. The article argues that one reason for this disagreement is a lack of integrative cumulation of knowledge. Such an integrative cumulation is prevented by three obstacles, which have until now hardly been discussed in the literature. The first is the use of inadequate terms, discussed here with a focus on the labels ‘Malthusian’/‘cornucopian’ and the operationalization of key variables. Secondly, the weaknesses of large-N studies in research on climate change and violent conflict are not sufficiently reflected. These include a lack of data on crucial concepts as well as deficits of widely used datasets. Thirdly, literature that deals with a possible link between adverse environmental change and peace (termed here ‘environmental peace perspective’) has neither been systematized nor adequately considered in the debate so far. The article provides examples of these shortcomings and makes suggestions of how to address each of them. It also develops an integrative theoretical framework for the environmental peace perspective which facilitates its consideration in research on climate change and violent conflict.

Sampling bias in climate–conflict research

Critics have argued that the evidence of an association between climate change and conflict is flawed because the research relies on a dependent variable sampling strategy1–4. Similarly, it has been hypothesized that convenience of access biases the sample of cases studied (the ‘streetlight effect’5). This also gives rise to claims that the climate–conflict literature stigmatizes some places as being more ‘naturally’ violent6–8. Yet there has been no proof of such sampling patterns. Here we test whether climate–conflict research is based on such a biased sample through a systematic review of the literature. We demonstrate that research on climate change and violent conflict suffers from a streetlight effect. Further, studies which focus on a small number of cases in particular are strongly informed by cases where there has been conflict, do not sample on the independent variables (climate impact or risk), and hence tend to find some association between these two variables. These biases mean that research on climate change and conflict primarily focuses on a few accessible regions, overstates the links between both phenomena and cannot explain peaceful outcomes from climate change. This could result in maladaptive responses in those places that are stigmatized as being inherently more prone to climate-induced violence.A systematic review shows that climate–conflict research tends to focus on a few accessible regions characterized by violent conflict rather than those most vulnerable to climate change, which may inflate the perceived prevalence of links between climate change and violent conflict.

Space, discourse and environmental peacebuilding

Abstract The concept of environmental peacebuilding is becoming increasingly prominent among peacebuilding scholars and practitioners. This study provides a brief overview about the various discussions contributing to our understanding of environmental peacebuilding and concludes that questions of space have hardly been explicitly considered in these debates. Drawing on discourse-analytic spatial theory, I discuss how the social construction of scale, place and boundaries are relevant for environmental peacebuilding processes and outcomes. This theoretical approach is then applied to the Good Water Neighbours project, which aims at improving the regional water situation and at building peace between Israelis, Palestinians and Jordanians. The results suggest that discursive constructions of space are important in facilitating, impeding or shaping environmental peacebuilding practices. Analyses of environmental peacebuilding, but also of peacebuilding more general, are therefore encouraged to draw more strongly on the findings of spatial theory.

Does environmental peacemaking between states work? Insights on cooperative environmental agreements and reconciliation in international rivalries:

The literature on environmental peacemaking argues that cooperation in the face of shared environmental challenges can facilitate further cooperation, trust building, and eventually peace between states in conflict. Empirical research on environmental peacemaking, predominantly conducted in the form of single case studies, has so far been inconclusive. This article uses a cross-case, multimethod research design to test the environmental peacemaking proposition. More specifically, it argues that the conclusion of a cooperative environmental agreement can have a positive impact on reconciliation between rival states. Based on a new dataset on international rivalry termination, transboundary protected areas, and international freshwater agreements, this article first conducts a statistical analysis and a qualitative comparative analysis (QCA). The results are then verified and refined by six case studies. Triangulation of findings from the three studies suggests that the conclusion of a cooperative environmental agreement facilitates reconciliation in international rivalries. But this effect is contingent on a number of scope conditions, such as high environmental attention, internal political stability, wider patterns or traditions of environmental cooperation, and already ongoing processes of reconciliation. Still, the findings imply that environmental challenges do not only affect peace and security in a negative way. Addressing them jointly also opens opportunities for peacemaking and peacebuilding between states.

The Climate-Conflict Nexus: Pathways, Regional Links, and Case Studies

The role of climate change as a potential cause of violent conflict has been debated in the scholarly and policy communities for several years. We review the most recent quantitative and qualitative literature and find that research on the issue has produced little consensual findings so far. Further, we discuss major theoretical, conceptual and empirical issues and describe possible pathways linking climate change to violent conflict. To illustrate these issues, we analyse the climate-conflict nexus in different world regions and present three qualitative case studies in north-western Kenya, the Nile Basin, and Israel/Palestine. We find that possible reasons for the lack of scientific consensus may be the difficulties of existing approaches to adequately capture the complex links between climate change, vulnerability, and violent conflict.

Resilience and environmental security: towards joint application in peacebuilding

ABSTRACT Resilience is a widely used concept among development, environmental, security and peacebuilding organizations. However, resilience has rarely been applied in conjunction with the potentially complementary concept of environmental security. Therefore, this paper explores how the concepts of resilience and environmental security can be jointly applied by non-governmental organizations working to implement peacebuilding projects in developing countries. We first review definitions of the concepts and explore their strengths and pitfalls. Second, we develop a conceptual framework for a joint application whereby environmental security sharpens the scope of resilience, while resilience allows for taking issues into account that a traditional environmental security perspective might miss. Finally, we apply the conceptual framework to a case study from Palestine.

Terrorism in the textbook: a comparative analysis of terrorism discourses in Germany, India, Kenya and the United States based on school textbooks

Abstract This study traces the (geopolitical) knowledge on terrorism circulating in Germany, India, Kenya, and the United States based on an analysis of school textbooks. It contributes to the existing literature in three ways. First, it transcends the Western-centrism of International Relations by analysing discourses from the Global North and the Global South. Second, it introduces school textbooks as a crucial object of research in constructivist terrorism studies and International Relations. School textbooks indicate the (geopolitical) knowledge deemed essential in a given society, but are also widely distributed among young people. Third, I address the debate about a presumed homogenization and internationalization of terrorism discourses in recent years. Results show that all four discourses depict terrorists as evil, focus on external non-state groups as perpetrators and associate terrorism with Islam. But there are also considerable differences regarding the relative importance of terrorism as a security threat, the referent object affected and the countermeasures deemed appropriate.

Reply to ‘Sampling bias does not exaggerate climate–conflict claims’

To the Editor — In a recent Letter, Adams and colleagues1 argue that claims regarding climate–conflict links are overstated because of sampling bias. However, this conclusion rests on logical fallacies and conceptual misunderstanding. There is some sampling bias, but it does not have the claimed effect. Suggesting that a more representative literature would generate a lower estimate of climate–conflict links is a case of begging the question. It only makes sense if one already accepts the conclusion that the links are overstated. Otherwise it is possible that more representative cases might lead to stronger estimates. In fact, correcting sampling bias generally does tend to increase effect estimates2,3. The authors’ claim that the literature’s disproportionate focus on Africa undermines sustainable development and climate adaptation rests on the same fallacy. What if the links between climate and conflict are as strong as people think? It is far from obvious that acting as if they were not would somehow enhance development and adaptation. The authors offer no reasoning to support such a claim, and the notion that security and development are best addressed in concert is consistent with much political theory and practice4–6. Conceptually, the authors apply a curious kind of ‘piling on’ perspective in which each new study somehow ratchets up the consensus view of a country’s climate–conflict links, without regard to methods or findings. Consider the papers cited as examples of how selecting cases on the conflict variable exaggerates the link: each uses a case selection strategy rooted in the qualitative methods literature7. One, using a form of ‘crucial’ case study, finds no evidence of climate impacts on land-use conflicts in Mali, a region where climate–conflict links were particularly likely to be found8. The other, using a ‘structured, focused comparison’, investigates two regions in the Middle East with similar climate stress but different conflict outcomes and concludes that climate’s role as a conflict driver has been exaggerated9. It is hard to see how these papers mislead people into thinking climate–conflict links are stronger than they really are. Knowing that case selection is biased is useful, but not a reason to lower our estimate of the climate’s impact on conflict. ❐

International Water Cooperation and Environmental Peacemaking

Proponents of the environmental peacemaking approach argue that environmental cooperation has the potential to improve relations between states. This is because such cooperation facilitates common problem solving, cultivates interdependence, and helps to build trust and understanding. But as of now, very few cross-case studies on environmental peacemaking exist. Furthermore, much of the available literature understands peace in negative terms as the mere absence of acute conflict. This article addresses both shortcomings by studying the impact of international water cooperation on transitions toward more peaceful interstate relations. To do so, we combine information on positive water-related interactions between states with the peace scale, a recent data set measuring the degree of positive and negative peace between states. For the period 1956–2006, we find that a higher number of positive, water-related interactions in the previous ten years makes a shift toward more peaceful interstate relations more likely. This is particularly the case for state pairs that are not in acute conflict with each other.