The articles states how the unrest in Syria could be linked back to environmental factors - in particular climate change.
Between 2006-2011 Syria suffered its worst drought, it was more intense and lasted longer than what could be explained by natural variability and so its is believed anthropogenic climate change is to blame. The effects of the drought were disastrous for the country with crop failures, 85% of livestock dying, pepper fields failing and more than 1 million farmers losing their land and livelihoods. With little government help farmers were forced to move into overcrowded cities and this exacerbated the problems of water supply, unemployment and poverty.
Eventually demonstrations against the governments and protests around the country lead to the uprising and civil unrest we've seen in the papers. around Million have been displaced, there have been numerous deaths and around 4 million people have left Syria.
This figure shows that the drought caused a significant loss of vegetation in Syria which led to massive reductions in agricultural productivity and displacement of the populations (source: USDA) |
This severe drought and change to the landscape and livelihoods of people had caused a mass displacement of people and ended up leading to changes in society itself thus in this situation climate change can be seen as the 'unhinging stressor' for Syria but the impacts won't end there! Rising temperatures are expected to reduce agricultural capacity by 50% leading to food insecurity, droughts, economic losses and water shortages.
The director of Climate and Security has stated that the situation in Syria has illustrated the need to take environmental stress seriously and that future of global security relies on our ability to manage climate stresses. This statement is important as changes to the environment can have major impact on lives, industry, governance and societies and harsh environmental conditions can even push societies to the brink (just look at the past collapses!).
But is this theory pushing it too far? Could this situation
even be considered as a collapse? Whilst I think this hypothesis
is interesting and changes to the local environment do seem to have had a knock
on effect on society in Syria, the underlying political situation seems to be
the main reason for what we see going on. As far as the second question goes
one misconception people may have of a collapse is that it means the population
have moved away or died but Jared Diamond defines a
collapse as ‘a decrease in population and/or in the political or economic
complexity in a certain area over a period of time’. The ongoing migration out
of Syria and the weakening of societal organisation and governance suggests
that there has been a breakdown of how the nation’s society operates but I do not
think this situation could be classified as a complete collapse like those seen
in the past.
Nonetheless I started out this blog thinking that society would
not collapse to such a scale in the past so it was interesting to see this
example of how a collapse may occur in this century. And whilst the political
situation seems to be the main driver of the issues facing Syria, environmental
stresses –the drought and unreliable precipitation- seem to have exacerbated problems
and are thus an important factor to take into consideration. Moreover, the devastation
that can occur when a nation with political instability also faces climate
change putting stress on resources such as food and water security illustrates how they
can lead to conflicts and problems in the effective running of society. Thus we
need to take the real threat that environmental stresses can cause seriously and as stated by Prince Charles start acting now in regards to climate
change and future security.
On the whole this example does bring into the question the issue
of societal collapse in this century and what it could mean to societies around
the world through the implications of changes to the local climate and
environmental processes. Comment below if you reckon something like climate change
or changes to regional environments could lead to similar issues or even a
collapse in the future.
Hi Vasu! What an interesting post! After a bit of deliberation, I think I do agree with you that the main cause of the Syrian conflict was the political instability, and that the drought acted to exacerbate this political instability. Do you think that this example could give us some ideas into collapse of past civilisations like the Maya? I think that something similar might have happened then - adverse climatic conditions exacerbated political instability leading to conflict, and eventual collapse. What do you think? (P.S. Love the shout-out to Prince Charles!)
ReplyDeleteHi Shruti thanks for commenting! I think by looking at both the past and present we're able to see the effects of environmental stress on how a society operates. So I agree with you in that a single event was most probably not the sole cause for the societal collapse but the impacts it had on the society did. Thus I think the main question is whether the first cause was a change in the environment or underlying societal issues which, along with a change in the environment, is what made the society to collapse.
DeleteI agree with both you and Shruti - I don't think that the principle driver of the conflict was environmental conditions, but rather the political instability. I think it's dangerous to blame the sole cause of the conflict on environmental determinism as it can imply that citizens in other countries can't cope with their environment as we can. Anyhow - interesting post ! :)
ReplyDeleteI agree with you and in another post I’ve mentioned the dangers of looking at these collapses as environmental determinism. In fact many of the nations these casestudies are used to and have measures to deal with environmental factors (e.g. channels, irrigation systems, sustainable practices etc) but instead these collapse theories suggest that an extreme event occurred that placed enormous stress that reduced the resilience of society and created other socio-economic issues that eventually led to a collapse. Thus I think looking at the past where societies have both failed and succeeded we may understand how environmental pressures can be dealt with and the knock-on effects on society.
DeleteHave to agree with you all as well, political factors for me outweigh the influence of the drought. Whilst, as Celia pointed out, environmental determinism is dangerous ground to be treading on, it might be worth considering a reinvention of the concept in the light of climate change. Any countries already susceptible to droughts and other climatic hazards will only become even more vulnerable in the coming years. Do you think there is a new environmental determinism being enforced by global warming? Could it realistically lead to any true collapses this century, in the globalised world we live in?
ReplyDeleteRally interesting comment Ben thank you! Climate change is definitely pushing some nations to an extreme but maybe this can be looked through an ‘environmental possibilism lens’– where the environment and its challenges offer different pathways based on our choices. By looking at collapses in this way we do not underestimate past civilizations ability to deal with changes in the environment and understand societal collapse as an event that was caused by multiple factors working together. And to answer your last question, climate change is definitely going to place enormous stresses on societies but with constant technological innovation and globalisation (e.g. aid, warning systems etc) I don’t think (or at least hope!) that we won’t let a collapse happen this century. Nonetheless, societies may change drastically due to climate change and other societal issues but only time will tell…
Delete