Climate change can also indirectly fuel violence. The tensions on agriculture and the exploitation of mineral resources required for the energy transition are to blame. This helps to better understand the risks of armed conflicts around the world.
Extreme weather events are becoming more frequent and intense. These climate shocks not only disrupt ecosystems but also reshape social, economic, and political dynamics on a global scale. Meanwhile, the transition to a low-carbon economy, though necessary, has led to an unprecedented demand for mineral resources such as lithium or rare earths. These resources are often extracted in regions already weakened by social tensions or armed conflicts.
For example, the conflict between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda, in which each accuses the other of arming rebel groups, mediated by the United States, is emblematic. These are lands rich in cobalt and copper, marked by increasingly prolonged droughts and heavier rains, in which the populations mainly rely on agriculture for their livelihood.
Since the 2010s, economists have increasingly focused on the complex links between climate change, natural resource exploitation, and the risk of conflict. Today, we have solid results, although some areas still have unclear aspects, and concrete avenues to guide public decision-making.
Agriculture at the center of conflicts
It is mainly through agriculture that this mechanism has been highlighted. Droughts, heatwaves, and floods systematically increase the likelihood and intensity of violence, especially in regions where livelihoods depend on rainfed agriculture.
This is played out through several factors:
-
The decrease in agricultural income can make joining armed groups more attractive;
-
The scarcity of resources can intensify competition between communities;
-
The heat itself can increase aggression, even in urban settings.
However, causality can also work the other way around. Conflicts often degrade the environment: illegal mining, expansion of illegal crops for drug production (e.g., poppy or coca), deforestation, infrastructure destruction, river pollution, and so on.
Vicious cycles are established, where environmental deterioration and violence mutually reinforce each other.
Read more:
Why women suffer more from natural disasters and migrations
When the green transition exacerbates violence
As climate shocks redefine opportunities locally, increases in natural resource prices raise the stakes of conflicts. Price increases in oil and metals have often intensified violence in production zones, especially where extraction is capital-intensive and resources can be exploited. The green transition risks exacerbating these dynamics.
The demand for “transition minerals” (also called “critical minerals”) is increasing rapidly, threatening to amplify this form of exploitation in certain regions, while fossil fuel revenues decline elsewhere.
The specific mechanisms by which mining activities trigger conflicts also depend on the type of operation. In artisanal mining, the employment of the local population plays a much larger role than in industrial mining. Also, pollution from mineral extraction – particularly water contamination – can reduce agricultural yields far beyond mining sites. Livelihoods are thus lost, further fueling conflict risks.
Risk factors often overlap. Regions prone to drought are frequently located above mineral deposits. Climate risks and resource-related risks could mutually worsen to trigger violence, although these complementarities are still poorly understood.
Read more:
How to escape the curse of the fossil fuel rent?
How to mitigate risks?
What public policies could mitigate conflict risks? Through rigorous evaluations, we have identified devices that could prove most effective. Individual insurance and social protection, first and foremost, can break the link between droughts and recruitment by armed groups.
However, their proper design is crucial: an insurance that stabilizes income during bad years can inadvertently encourage predation during good harvests. This requires careful contract design and credible monitoring mechanisms.
Irrigation, the choice of drought-resistant seeds, and the development of transportation links can also mitigate local weather shocks and reduce famine risks. However, roads and markets can also help armed groups tax trade or smuggle goods. Infrastructure choices should thus be accompanied by governance strengthening.
Read more:
West Africa’s roads, privileged battlegrounds for terrorist groups
Even with these protections, some shocks will still require rapid humanitarian aid. Targeting and timing of deployment are crucial. Evidence is mixed on whether humanitarian aid mitigates or exacerbates violence, underscoring the need for early warning systems and distribution model evaluations.
Regulating mineral extraction and sharing benefits credibly is also essential. Transparency and certification can reduce financing for armed groups in certain contexts, based on factors like industrial or artisanal nature of extraction, proximity to borders, or state capacity. Additional measures count as well: local revenue sharing, information campaigns setting realistic expectations, and centralized water and forest management can amplify the positive effects of well-designed regulation and reduce political capture opportunities.
Two clarifications are needed at this stage:
- Addressing conflict risks through public actions is costly. However, much of these measures cost less than prolonged conflict and can bring additional benefits in terms of economic growth.
- Effective policy design requires additional scientific evidence. Factors like biodiversity loss or migrations are being studied as causes of conflicts. Scientific understanding on these topics sometimes struggles to keep up with political debates.
Economy Spring, Author provided (no reuse)
This contribution is published in partnership with the Economy Spring, a series of conference-debates held from March 17 to 20 at the Economic, Social and Environmental Council (Cese) in Paris. Find the full program of the 2026 edition, “The Time of Power Relations,” here.
