In a recent article for New Security Beat, Colin Walch made the case that the abandonment of some communities in Mali to deal with climate change on their own has created “fertile ground” for jihadist recruitment. In a similar argument, Katharina Nett and Lukas Rüttinger in a report for adelphi asserted last month that “large-scale environmental and climatic change contributes to creating an environment in which [non-state armed groups] can thrive and opens spaces that facilitate the pursuit of their strategies.”

In 1981, Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen noted that “starvation is the characteristic of some people not having enough food to eat. It is not the characteristic of there being not enough food to eat.” Sen was referring to the idea that hunger is not always related to food supply; even in places where ample food exists, many people do not have regular access to it. Yet, more than three decades later, research into the effects of agriculture on armed conflict is still focused much more on the former than the latter.

In 2000, the United Nations established the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) with the goal of creating a global partnership for development. The formation of the MDGs created a foundation for collaboration and encouraged cross-sector partnerships to reduce poverty but also promote issues like environmental sustainability and gender equality. To carry on momentum from the MDGs, 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were established in 2015 to further encourage partnerships between civil society organizations, the private sector, academic institutions, and more. Increased private sector engagement in development is a major goal of the SDGs – and we would argue that it is crucial to their success.

The epicenter of violence in the unstable country of Mali has historically been in the north, a contested region from where Touareg separatist and jihadist armed groups launched an insurgency against the state in 2012. But over the last two years, there has been a marked shift in communal and anti-state violence to the central region, and climate change may have played a role.

Almost three decades ago, at a conference at the Woods Hole Institute, oceanographer John Martin said with “a half a tanker of iron…I will give you the next ice age.”

As you walk through the supermarket, you’ve probably noticed labels like “Rainforest Alliance Certified,” “Fair Trade,” or “Green Seal.” These certifications were created to help consumers use their purchasing power to reward companies that treat workers fairly and limit their harm to the environment. What’s missing is health, particularly women’s health. Too often these standards focus narrowly on occupational safety rather than addressing broader, but relevant, health needs of workers.

Over the last 60 years, more than two-thirds of the world’s remaining biodiversity hotspots have experienced armed conflict. The effects have been myriad, from destruction as a result of military tactics to indirect socioeconomic and political changes, like human migration and displacement. This so-called “war on wildlife” has important implications for conservation and peacebuilding efforts, according to a recent literature review published in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment.

Water security remains an ambiguous concept with an uncharted path to achievement. Water is an essential resource to our survival and livelihoods, yet most countries lack a clear strategy for how to protect and manage it. With increasing rates and sources of consumption, a growing population, and shifting frequency and intensity of rates of precipitation, continued inaction will have serious impacts on our national security, economy, and environment.