ABSTRACT
Whilst there is little doubt that armed conflict can lead to significant environmental degradation and make environments more susceptible to climate change’s effects, there is currently no scientific consensus that a direct reverse correlation is also true. From a research perspective, one challenge is finding appropriate and measurable proxies to stand in the place of climate change in analysis. Another challenge is the length of time over which changes have been occurring. There appears to be a trend in research studies, however, that suggests that phenomena more directly related to human impacts of climate, such as food insecurity, are associated with increases in conflict, even armed conflict. The case study of the civil war in Syria demonstrates just how difficult it can be to establish whether and to what degree climate change has played a causal role in armed conflict. From an operational perspective, however, the lack of scientific consensus as to causation is not a show-stopper – militaries are accustomed to dealing with uncertainty and risk as they formulate actions that must be taken decisively. Although there is no consensus in the scientific community that climate change causes armed conflict, the realistic threat of armed conflict and climate change having a compounding effect upon at-risk population cohorts such as women and girls means that gender considerations must be taken seriously to mitigate the risks they face, particularly in civilian-centric operations.
