Ecological degradation fuels Darfur war

The study conducted by UNEP for the Khartoum government and the government of Southern Sudan looks at the environmental impacts of wars in Southern and Northern Sudan and examines the role of environmental problems as a cause of that wars. Among the issues that triggered the war in Southern Sudan in 1983 was a dispute over the waters of the Nile. Oil and gas discoveries fanned the flames of conflict later, and precious forest resources were sacrificed to help fill the war chests. But what the study finds particularly disturbing is the degradation of arable and grazing land. Competition for land in Sudan is fought at local level, not on the national political stage as with other resources. In the arid regions of northern Sudan, especially in Darfur and Kordofan, it has long given rise to sporadic clashes between farmers and nomadic herdsmen. As a general rule, however, such disputes used to be swiftly settled by traditional mediation.

This no longer happens, UNEP says, partly because of the growing scarcity of productive land. One reason for the erosion of this vital resource is climate change. Since 1930, precipitation in Northern Darfur has fallen by a third; the desert boundary has shifted 50 to 200 kilometres further south. What is more, deforestation and soil erosion due to poor management have helped accelerate the loss of pasture and arable land. In some places, such as the Nuba Mountains, good land has also been occupied by large irrigated farms.

Another factor impacting on the availability of productive land is the sharp rise in demand for it. This is due, for one thing, to population growth, coupled with a lack of job opportunities outside farming. Also, the livestock population in northern Sudan has exploded since 1960: more animals on less land has resulted in overgrazing. In Northern Darfur, these processes have led to what the UNEP report describes as “ecological breakdown”. Pastoralists finding it increasingly difficult to feed their animals have been taking their herds farther south. At the same time, arable farmers have been advancing north, occupying grazing land and watering places and obstructing the herders’ passage. The result has been heightened local conflict.

This contributed to the outbreak of war in 2003 but, according to UNEP, was not the main reason for it. The UN assessors attribute that to politics in Sudan, even though – out of consideration for the client, perhaps – they do not go into details. The report mentions that legal reforms implemented since 1970 have destroyed local mediation and dispute resolution mechanisms. And according to Sudan experts, that paved the way for one of the root causes of the war: local disputes becoming enmeshed in national conflicts and brutal government action against dissidents and the rebels in Darfur. After-effects of the war in Southern Sudan – e.g. the spread of firearms – also played a role.

UNEP stresses that the search for peace needs to take account of the linkages between environmental problems and the ongoing conflict. No political solution for Darfur will work, it says, without stabilisation of the rural economy, promotion of appropriate land use and investment in sustainable development. Action also needs to be taken to prevent environmental conflicts developing elsewhere – e.g. as a result of the renewed migration of pastoralists to the Nuba Mountains and the environmental damage done by oil production. The explosive potential of conflicts rooted in environmental issues – especially competition for land in arid areas – is growing.

And not just in Sudan. The latest report by the German Federal Government’s Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU) warns that climate change will worsen water shortages in arid parts of the world, impact on food security in the tropics and intensify environment-linked migration in the developing world. This could aggravate or trigger violent conflicts – the report’s authors point out – especially where states that are already weak are destabilised further. However, the WBGU sees little likelihood of cross-border conflict over oil or water. Among the regional hotspots it identifies is the Sahel belt, which encompasses northern Sudan (See also p. 351). (bl)