Is climate exacerbating the root causes of conflict in Mali? A climate security analysis through a structural equation modeling approach

Abstract

Climate continues to pose significant challenges to human existence. Notably, in the past decade, the focus on the role of climate on conflict and social unrest has gained traction in academic, development, and policy communities. This article examines the link between climate variability and conflict in Mali. It advances the argument that climate is a threat multiplier, in other words, climate indirectly affects conflict occurrence through numerous pathways. We take the view that maize production and household food security status sequentially mediate the relationship between climate variability and the different conflict types. First, we provide a brief review of the climate conflict pathways in Mali. Second, we employ the path analysis within the structural equation modeling technique to test the hypothesized pathways and answer the research questions. We use the Living Standards Measurement Study-Integrated Surveys on Agriculture (LSMS-ISA), a nationally representative data from Mali merged with time and location-specific climate and the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data (ACLED) data. Results show that an increase in positive temperature anomalies when sequentially mediated by maize production and household food security status, increase the occurrence of the different conflict types. The results are robust to the use of negative precipitation anomalies (tendency toward less precipitation compared to the historical norm). Our findings highlight two key messages, first, the crucial role of climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies and interventions on influencing household food security status and thus reducing conflict occurrence. Second, that efforts to build peace and security should account for the role of climate in exacerbating the root causes of conflict.

Measuring the climate security nexus: the Integrated Climate Security Framework

“…Our reading of the climate security nexus does not embrace the securitization of climate, which has been largely criticized by scholars and policy makers as it would imply attributing to climate causes of conflicts that are inherently cultural, social and political (104). Nevertheless, our research clearly points out that a nexus between climate and root causes of vulnerabilities that could lead to or intensify pre-existing drivers of conflict exists (5). The main challenge of this discourse and research, though, is to identify the right analytical framework that does not simplistically qualifies these intricate and complex relationships and dynamics, that identifies multiple pathways, that does not draw linear causal associations, that accounts for context specificity, and that gives voices to affected communities and represent the views of multiple actors at multiple scales.…”

Using climate financing wisely to address multiple crises

“…Adapting food systems in a climate crisis is crucial for peace and security; climate change and variability can impact food security and food insecurity can exacerbate the drivers of insecurities [13,29]. Moreover, conflict and climate events significantly disrupt food systems and value chains.…”

ClimResilience, a global climate resilience framework

“…Climate change direct and indirect impacts on the main development sectors [1 -5] could induce social, economic, environmental, institutional or political regression dynamics in several regions of the world [6 -10]. The set of markers of such dynamics includes social inequalities and disparities accentuation [11,12], community con icts over natural resources increase [11,12], climate migration ampli cation [13,14] and humanitarian, social, institutional and political crises intensi cation [15,16]. A signi cant and continuous improvement in knowledge, solutions, technologies and decision support tools for resilience is one of the levers to consider for e cient responses to climate change impacts [17 -21].…”