Topic 3 – The relationship between peace and environmental degradation, including water scarcity

 

Speaker: Mr. Serge Stroobants (Director of Europe & MENA region for IEP)

 

Preserving the independence of science :

​

Mr. S. Stroobants (Director, Europe and MENA, Institute for Economics and Peace) said that it was crucial to preserve the independence of science. Investment in research and technologies by multiple stakeholders would leverage significant benefits for society. However, both States and companies would always look to exercise their influence and maximize their own interests, whether political, financial or commercial. The Institute for Economics and Peace was an independent, not-for-profit think tank dedicated to understanding the intersection between business, peace and economics. It was a luxury to be able to focus on the principles and vision of the Institute in an independent manner. The Institute placed a special emphasis on metrics to measure peace, operational programmes to improve peace, and the economic benefits of peace. The head office of the think tank was located in Sydney, with other offices in Brussels, Harare, New York and Mexico City.

 

The Ecological Threat Report :

​

In 2022, the Institute for Economics and Peace published its Ecological Threat Report, which studied the levels of resilience and capacities of States in relation to ecological threats. Many countries did not have the capacity or resilience to withstand the impacts of many ecological threats. The level of resilience of States was measured through a systematic analysis of thousands of data points to assess vulnerability, resilience and risk, as well as the attitudes, structures and institutions that were in place to create a more peaceful, stable and resilient society. In total, 3638 local administrative areas in 228 countries and independent States were ranked based on the impact of ecological threats. The Report focused on four key domains: food security, water stress, population growth and natural disasters. The output of the Report was two objective measures for ecological threats: an Ecological Threat Report (ETR) score, which referred to the number of ecological threats faced by a State; and a Catastrophic Score, which referred to the threat that would be most catastrophic for a State. Countries with the highest ecological threats and the lowest levels of resilience were classified as hotspot countries. There were 27 hotspot countries in the 2022 Ecological Threat Report.

Based on the key findings of the report, 127 countries faced the greatest ecological threats, and were home to over 2 billion people. By 2050, it was expected that the population of such countries would increase to 3.4 billion, representing a 66% increase in population. The population in low peace countries was expected to increase by 37%, compared to an increase of less than 1% in very high peace countries. There was an intimate relationship between ecological threats, levels of reliance and violence. Most countries affected by ecological threats also appeared at the top in many global terrorism indices. Some 760 million people were suffering from undernourishment, which exacerbated the situation in many States. Undernourishment was not a new phenomenon, but it had been reinforced by the COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine. Trends regarding the perception of the impact of ecological degradation and climate change were concerning. Since 2019, concern about the impact of climate change and ecological threats had fallen by 1.5% to 48%. Of particular note were very low levels of concern in China, the Russian Federation and India. It was clear that the world’s biggest polluters had the greatest impact on the evolution of ecological degradation. The world’s fastest growing megacities were the least capable of managing growth, which frequently led to high levels of violence, civil unrest, pervasive pollution and poor sanitation. Many cities were typically built on ground that was previously used for agriculture, which decreased a State’s ability to mitigate environmental issues. Countries with high societal resilience were likely to meet their ecological challenges. Such countries had a responsibility and duty to helping those States that would not be able to meet their ecological challenges. In such circumstances, science was deprioritized over politics. The amounts of money requested during recent international conferences were minuscule when compared to the amounts of money invested in security, saving national economies during the COVID-19 pandemic and promoting worldwide competition.

Of the nine regions set out in the report, the three regions that faced the greatest threats and had the highest ETR scores were South America, South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, with the latter facing the greatest challenges. Some 89% of people in the region faced food insecurity, which would be exacerbated further by increases in the population. By 2050, the population in Sub-Saharan Africa was projected to increase by 95%, with the population of 15 countries expected to more than double. Consequently, resources would disappear more quickly as a result of greater demand. Six of the 10 least peaceful countries in the world were located in the region.

Many reports on climate change and ecological threats compiled by other think tanks typically focused on the impact faced by countries, and did not adequately consider their capacity to absorb such impacts. Climate aid was based on such impact-focused research. Some countries still had some resilience to absorb shocks and therefore did not receive international climate aid. The approach to climate aid needed to be reviewed so that countries that did not have such acute levels of ecological impact or climate change were included in aid distribution.

 

Food and Water Security :

​

Some 41 countries faced extreme food insecurity, and 92% of food-insecure people lived in countries with low levels of peace. Over 830 million people lived in countries with severe levels of food insecurity. Such extreme statistics had led the Institute for Economics and Peace to pursue collaborations with the World Food Programme to analyse the correlation between food, security and peace. Sub-Saharan Africa had the greatest proportion of its population living with catastrophic levels of food insecurity, which were 14 times greater than the second most affected region.

Food and water security were intrinsically related. A lack of water would lead to a lack of food. More than 1.4 billion people across 83 countries were exposed to extreme levels of water stress. Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia and Latin America suffered from the greatest levels of water stress. Without prior planning, many European countries would suffer from water stress. Water was also a source and trigger of conflict. The probability of settling such water-related conflicts by negotiation or mediation was decreasing, and the potential for conflicts to occur due to water was increasing. Dams provided significant opportunity for energy production, but posed major issues for downstream countries.

The Asia-Pacific region was the region most affected by natural disasters, followed by Sub-Saharan African, Central America and the Caribbean. Flooding was the most common form of natural disaster. The related cost of natural disasters had risen from US$ 50 billion per year in the 1980s to over US$ 200 billion per year in the last decade. Now was the time for action. It was a common misconception that it would be more cost-effective to postpone investment on mitigating the effect of ecological threats and the impact of climate change.

The number of people displaced by conflict had continued to increase dramatically. Excluding displacement caused by the war in Ukraine, over 89 million people had been displaced because of conflict, which represented a 3.5% increase on 2021. The five countries with the largest levels of conflict displacements in 2021 were Syria, Ethiopia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Afghanistan and South Sudan.

 

Current policies are not enough to reverse the deteriorating environment :

​

Current policies would not be enough to reverse the deteriorating environments of the poorest and least peaceful countries. Countries with the highest levels of resilience would be able to mitigate current and future ecological shocks. Such countries had a duty to support less-resilient States. Better analysis of societal systems would provide for more effective environmental outcomes. Systemic solutions and research were required at the multilateral level. International and multilateral stakeholders seemed to operate in separate silos, and therefore were unable to adequately provide solutions to systemic problems. There could be no solutions in solving the problem of the interaction between ecological degradation and conflict without the support of local communities. The link between multi-billion-dollar regional initiatives and microfinanced local initiatives was missing. There were almost no solutions that cost between US$ 0.5 million and US$ 1 million. It was important to establish a connection between very strategic political solutions and local solutions.