Extreme Weather Events, Resource Extraction, and Conflict: Interconnected Issues

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. At the same time, the transition to a low-carbon economy, while necessary, is generating an unprecedented demand for resources like lithium and rare earth minerals. These resources are often extracted in regions already destabilized 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, mediated eventually by the United States, is a prime example. These are regions rich in cobalt and copper, marked by increasingly prolonged droughts and heavier rainfall, where the majority of the population still relies on agriculture.

Since the 2010s, economists have been increasingly interested in the complex links between climate change, resource exploitation, and conflict risk. Today, we have robust findings and concrete pathways to guide public policymakers, although some uncertainties persist.

Agriculture at the Heart of Conflicts

It is primarily through agriculture that the mechanism has been highlighted. Droughts, heatwaves, and floods systematically increase the probability and intensity of violence, especially in regions where livelihoods depend directly on rainfall-based agriculture.

Several factors play a role:

• The decline in agricultural income can make joining armed groups more attractive;
• Resource scarcity can intensify competition between communities;
• High temperatures can escalate aggression, even in urban environments.

The causality can also work the other way around. Conflicts often degrade the environment through illegal mining, expansion of illegal drug-producing crops, deforestation, infrastructure destruction, and river pollution.

Vicious cycles emerge, where environmental degradation and violence mutually reinforce each other.

When the Green Transition Exacerbates Violence

As climate shocks redefine local opportunities, rises in natural resource prices increase the stakes of conflicts. Price hikes in oil and metals have often escalated violence in production zones, especially when extraction is capital-intensive and resources can be plundered. The green transition risks exacerbating these dynamics.

The demand for “transition minerals” is rapidly increasing, threatening to amplify predatory practices in certain regions, while fossil fuel revenues decline elsewhere.

The specific mechanisms by which mining activity triggers conflicts depend on the type of exploitation. In artisanal mining, local employment plays a significant role compared to industrial mining. Additionally, pollution from mineral extraction, especially water contamination, can reduce agricultural yields well beyond the mining sites, leading to lost livelihoods and increased conflict risks.

Risk factors often overlap. Drought-prone regions are frequently located above mineral deposits. Climate risks and resource-related risks may mutually worsen to trigger violence, although these complementarities are still poorly understood.

How to Mitigate Risks?

What public policies could mitigate conflict risks? Through rigorous evaluations, we have identified approaches that could be most effective. Individual insurance and social protection, for example, can break the link between droughts and recruitment by armed groups.

However, their proper design is crucial – an insurance scheme stabilizing incomes in bad years could inadvertently encourage predation in good harvest years. This requires meticulous contract design and credible monitoring mechanisms.

Irrigation, drought-resistant seed choices, and transport link development can also mitigate local weather shocks and reduce famine risks. Yet, roads and markets can also aid armed groups in taxing trade or smuggling goods.

Infrastructure choices should, therefore, be accompanied by strengthened governance.

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

Regulating mineral extraction and credibly sharing benefits is also crucial. Transparency and certification can reduce funding for armed groups in certain contexts, aided by factors like industrial or artisanal nature of exploitation, proximity to borders, or state capacity. Complementary measures matter too: local revenue sharing, information campaigns setting realistic expectations, and decentralized water and forest management can amplify the positive effects of well-designed regulation and reduce political capture possibilities.

Two clarifications are necessary at this stage:

• Firstly, mitigating 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.
• Secondly, designing effective policies requires additional scientific evidence. Factors like biodiversity loss or migrations are being studied as conflict causes, with scientific knowledge sometimes lagging behind political debates.