This report finds that the evidence base for the ‘natural’ disasters-conflict interface is fragmented and contested. This suggests that the complexity of conflict and disaster dynamics can only be understood when grounded in specific contexts. Examples are therefore provided of disaster risk reduction in Afghanistan, resilience building in the Sahel region, community based risk reduction in Karamoja and national risk reduction in Nepal. Among the report’s conclusions are that disaster risk management and peacebuilding and statebuilding frameworks should be integrated more systematically.
The impact of natural disasters on conflict
The balance of evidence on the impact of natural disasters on conflict suggests that natural disasters exacerbate pre-existing conflicts. There are only a limited number of cases where natural disasters have supported peacebuilding and led to the resolution of conflicts, such as Aceh. In every complex situation, numerous interactions exist, where natural disasters reduce some conflict drivers while exacerbating others:
- Grievances can be deepened by natural disasters that increase resource scarcity or cause more acute imbalances between areas of scarcity and abundance. Grievances can also increase with the unequal distribution of ex-post humanitarian aid or ex-ante preventative/protective measures.
- The disruption caused by natural disasters can present economic opportunities for criminal activity, while their impact on livelihoods can lead individuals to join armed groups. In some cases, though, good access to reconstruction aid can increase the opportunity cost of conflict.
- Political opportunities for engaging in conflict can arise when disasters create a smokescreen for advancing political or military objectives (such as increasing military spending, deploying troops to sensitive areas, or manipulating aid to some groups over others).
- The feasibility of conflict can also be changed by natural disasters, either by strengthening or weakening one side in a conflict directly or through the appropriation of aid.
The impact of conflict and fragility on ‘natural’ disasters
There is strong evidence that conflict and fragility increase the impact of natural disasters, notably by increasing vulnerability to natural hazards. Conflict increases disaster risk by displacing people into areas more exposed to hazards and through the impacts it has on physical and psychological health, basic service provision and livelihoods. In a limited number of cases, individuals and groups can gain from conflicts (through the so called ‘war economy’) in ways that increase their resilience to disasters.
Conflict can undermine the capacity of governmental and non-governmental actors to plan for and protect people against hazards. In addition, governments can also exacerbate post-disaster suffering by inhibiting aid on security grounds or appropriating humanitarian aid to support conflict objectives. It is valuable to draw a distinction between fragile and conflict-affected states that are willing but unable, and those that are unwilling and unable to reduce the vulnerability of populations to disaster risks and impacts.
Towards a conceptual framework
Interventions aimed at reducing natural disaster risk can have positive or negative effects on the dynamics of conflict; conversely, interventions aimed at preventing conflict can have positive or negative effects on the likelihood and impact of natural disasters. The ideal scenario is to have interventions that reduce the likelihood of natural disasters and conflict. Disaster risk management should be integrated more systematically into peacebuilding and statebuilding frameworks, and the reverse should also happen. Greater cross-integration of frameworks will help encourage a transition from collision to collaboration between the two communities.
Over time it will be necessary to devise integrated approaches to natural disaster and conflict risk through a joint conceptual framework. This should encourage accountability, learning, evidence-gathering, cross-organisational exchanges and should draw on conflict sensitivity and political economy analysis.
Recommendations
Recommendations for donors include the following:
- Constitute joint risk taskforces in key fragile and conflict-affected states to integrate conflict, natural disaster and climate change practitioners, plans and programmes.
- Explore new partnerships and new ways of working and build the evidence base about how to better invest in ex-ante risk management measures in fragile and conflict-affected states.
- Be prepared to risk greater levels of up-stream investment in fragile and conflict-affected states.
- Where possible, use multi-year funding so that short-term funding restrictions do not inhibit opportunities to build resilience
- Invest in the capacities of programme staff in fragile and conflict-affected states to better link approaches to conflict, disasters and climate change.