Extreme Weather Events, Natural Resources and Conflicts: Understanding the Interactions

[An article by Oliver Vanden Eynde – Professor with a research chair at the Paris School of Economics and CNRS research director, and Juan Vargas – Professor of Economics at the University of Torino]

Extreme weather events are becoming more frequent and intense. These climatic shocks not only disrupt ecosystems but also reshape social, economic, and political dynamics on a global scale. Concurrently, the transition to a low-carbon economy, while 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.

The conflict between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda, for example, where each accuses the other of arming rebel groups and ultimately arbitrated by the United States, is a prominent case. These are lands rich in cobalt and copper, characterized by increasingly prolonged droughts and heavy rains, upon which the majority of the population still depends on agriculture.

Since the 2010s, economists have been increasingly interested in the complex links between climate change, natural resource exploitation, and conflict risk. Robust results are now available, despite some remaining uncertainties, providing concrete pathways to guide public policy actions.

Agriculture at the Core of Conflicts

Initially, agriculture has been shown to be a key factor in this mechanism. Droughts, heatwaves, and floods systematically increase the likelihood and intensity of violence, particularly in regions where livelihoods rely on rain-fed agriculture.

This plays out through various channels:

• Declining agricultural incomes can make joining armed groups more attractive;
• Resource scarcity can escalate competition between communities;
• Extreme heat can increase aggression, even in urban settings.

The causality can also work in reverse. Conflicts often degrade the environment: illegal mining, expansion of illegal drug crops (such as opium or coca), deforestation, infrastructure destruction, river pollution, and more.

Vicious cycles are formed where environmental degradation and violence mutually reinforce each other.

When the Green Transition Exacerbates Violence

As climate shocks redefine local opportunities, increases in natural resource prices elevate conflict stakes. Price surges in oil and metals have often intensified violence in production zones, especially where extraction is capital-intensive and resources are vulnerable to looting. The green transition may exacerbate these dynamics.

The demand for “transition minerals” is rapidly rising, threatening to escalate exploitation in certain regions, while revenues from fossil fuels decrease elsewhere.

The specific mechanisms through which mining activity triggers conflicts also depend on the type of operation. In artisanal mining, local employment plays a much larger role than in industrial mining. Additionally, pollution from mineral extraction – especially water contamination – can reduce agricultural yields far beyond the mining sites. Livelihoods are lost, consequently doubling conflict risks.

Risk factors often overlap. Regions prone to droughts are frequently located above mineral deposits. Climate risks and resource-related risks could mutually worsen to trigger violence, although these complementarities are not yet well understood.

How to Mitigate Risks?

What public policies could mitigate conflict risks? Through rigorous evaluations, several strategies have been identified as potentially most effective. Individual insurance and social protection can break the link between droughts and recruitment by armed groups.

However, their proper design is crucial: insurance stabilizing incomes in bad years may inadvertently encourage predation in good harvests. This requires meticulous contract design and credible monitoring mechanisms.

Irrigation, drought-resistant seed choices, and transportation links can also mitigate local weather shocks and reduce famine risks. Nevertheless, roads and markets can also assist armed groups in taxing trade or smuggling goods. Infrastructure choices should be accompanied by governance strengthening.

Even with these protections, some shocks will still require rapid humanitarian aid. Targeting and timing of deployment are crucial. Evidence is mixed on whether it mitigates or exacerbates violence, underscoring the need for early warning systems and distribution model assessments.

Regulating mineral extraction and credibly sharing benefits is also essential. Transparency and certification can reduce funding for armed groups in certain contexts: industrial or artisanal nature of operation, proximity to borders, or state capacity. Complementary measures matter too: 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 necessary at this point.

• Firstly, mitigating conflict risks through public actions is costly. However, much of these measures are cheaper than prolonged conflict and can bring additional economic growth benefits.
• Secondly, effective policy design requires additional scientific evidence. Factors like biodiversity loss or migrations are particularly understudied as conflict causes. Scientific knowledge on these subjects sometimes struggles to keep up with political debates.