Not only can activities for climate change mitigation and lowering vulnerability to climate change be seen as suitable approaches to avoid conflict, what has been ignored is the fact that these efforts could also aggravate existing conflicts or create new ones if not carefully designed.
To fill this gap, the Wilson Center’s Environmental Change and Security Program released a study entitled Backdraft: The Conflict Potential of Climate Mitigation and Adaptation. The report comprises two policy reviews and a number of case studies and “spotlights” and was recently launched in Washington, D.C..

Three key insights emerge from the report to inform policy decisions on climate change:
-    Do no harm: Recognize that all interventions have the potential to exacerbate or alleviate existing tensions.
-    Be open to new ideas: Improve communication and collaboration across communities and disciplines, from climate science and natural resource management experts to international development entities and the military. Intelligent adaptation and mitigation policies need flexible programmes that measure their success against multiple objectives, not just one target.
-    Build pathways to peace: Identify and implement climate change programmes that can support peace-building initiatives.

The essay, ”The Need for Conflict-Sensitive Adaptation to Climate Change,” discusses peace and conflict potential against the backdrop of the international climate negotiations. It urges policymakers to think beyond national borders in order to more effectively address the transboundary impacts of climate change in conflict settings. A series of policy recommendations provide the aid and development communities with a potential blueprint for conflict-sensitive adaptation measures.

The case studies and spotlights look at the geopolitical risks of “green” technology, REDD programs (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation), and geoengineering, as well as at civil tensions and stresses created when foreign companies buy land or when forest or cropland is claimed for the production of biofuels. In his case study and in his presentation at the launch, VanDeveer, associate professor of political science at the University of New Hampshire, analyzes the conflict potential of mining and refining the minerals vital to so many green technologies. He argues that substantial efforts are needed to address underlying and chronic governance deficits, otherwise the transition to a “green” economy will likely only result in a “greening of the [resource] curse”. The term resource curse has been coined for the observed pattern that heavy dependence on national income from natural resource extraction is often associated with low institutional quality.

The Backdraft Report provides yet another perspective to climate change policies. As panelists at the launch event agreed, it adds a new layer of complexity to an arguably already confusing story. But its message is nevertheless indispensable: responses to the effects of climate change can have their own unintended consequences, and policy-makers should pay due attention to design policies that take into account these potential effects.