Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2010 Sep 21;107(38):16477-82.
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1005739107. Epub 2010 Sep 7.

Climate not to blame for African civil wars

Affiliations

Climate not to blame for African civil wars

Halvard Buhaug. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. .

Abstract

Vocal actors within policy and practice contend that environmental variability and shocks, such as drought and prolonged heat waves, drive civil wars in Africa. Recently, a widely publicized scientific article appears to substantiate this claim. This paper investigates the empirical foundation for the claimed relationship in detail. Using a host of different model specifications and alternative measures of drought, heat, and civil war, the paper concludes that climate variability is a poor predictor of armed conflict. Instead, African civil wars can be explained by generic structural and contextual conditions: prevalent ethno-political exclusion, poor national economy, and the collapse of the Cold War system.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.
Trends in climate and civil war in Africa (1960–2005). (Upper Left) Deviation from mean annual precipitation in the period, calculated from precipitation data from the Global Precipitation Climatology Centre (19). (Upper Right) Deviation from mean annual temperature in the period based on statistics from the Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia (20). (Lower Left) Frequency of countries with outbreak and incidence of civil wars (at least 25 battle-related deaths per year) in Africa, as defined by the UCDP/PRIO Armed Conflict Dataset v.4–2009 (11). (Lower Right) Low and high estimates of annual war deaths in Africa derived from the PRIO Battle Deaths Dataset v.3 (14).
Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.
Ninety-five percent confidence interval bands for change in the estimated probability of civil war with a shift from the 10th to the 90th percentile value on the selected climate variable, all other parameters held at median values. Results for six alternative climate measures in five sets of regressions are shown: 1a–f represent models with civil war outbreak as the dependent variable; 2a–f represent major civil war outbreaks; 3a–f represent civil war incidence; 4a–f represent major civil war incidence; and 5a–f represent major civil war years only. Model suffix reflects climate parameter: a is absolute temperature (t−1); b is temperature growth since previous year (t−1); c is temperature anomaly (t−1); d is absolute precipitation (t−1); e is precipitation growth since previous year (t−1); and f is precipitation anomaly, i.e., deviation from normal (t−1). All models are estimated through robust logit regression with controls for ethno-political exclusion, GDP per capita, post-Cold War period, and past conflict.

Comment in

References

    1. Obama B. Nobel Lecture (the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Oslo, Norway, 10 December) 2009. Available at http://nobelpeaceprize.org/en_GB/laureates/laureates-2009/obama-lecture/. Accessed August 20, 2010.
    1. CNA . National Security and the Threat of Climate Change. Alexandria, VA: CNA Corporation; 2007.
    1. Smith D, Vivekananda J. A Climate of Conflict: The Links between Climate Change, Peace and War. London, UK: International Alert; 2007.
    1. Schwartz P, Randall D. An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security. US Department of Defense, Washington, DC; 2003.
    1. Miguel E, Satyanath S, Sergenti E. Economic shocks and civil conflict: An instrumental variables approach. J Polit Econ. 2004;112:725–753.