New Research Warns of Conflict Risks in South Sudan Climate Plans

(JUBA COUNTY) – South Sudan, still reeling from years of civil war and instability, remains especially vulnerable to worsening climate shocks such as floods and drought. Yet while many climate adaptation projects are aimed at building resilience, a new study warns that such initiatives may unintentionally fuel violence if not designed with conflict dynamics in mind.

This warning comes from conflict researcher Ore Koren, who co-authored a new book on climate adaptation and conflict with Jerry Urtuzuastigui. Their findings suggest that South Sudan’s situation provides important lessons for how climate change and violent conflict can interact, with global implications for humanitarian and development efforts.

Since its independence in 2011, South Sudan has experienced widespread internal conflict that has displaced an estimated 2.3 million people. At the same time, climate related disasters such as prolonged droughts and record breaking floods are causing food insecurity, destroying livelihoods and isolating communities. These shocks often deepen tensions over land and water and give armed groups more space to operate unchecked.

In response, both national agencies and international organisations have launched a variety of climate adaptation and food security programmes. These range from planting drought resistant crops and rainwater harvesting to livestock restocking and climate smart agriculture training. Some initiatives are led by large NGOs or UN agencies, while smaller community based groups focus on grassroots adaptation and local food systems.

These efforts are designed to go beyond short term humanitarian aid, aiming instead to improve long term resilience and reduce dependency. However, South Sudan’s complex and often decentralised security landscape poses major risks to such programmes.

Violence in the country is not limited to state versus rebel group fighting. Communal clashes between ethnic groups, pastoralist conflicts, and militia activity are widespread. According to the researchers, many of today’s conflicts stem from local political grievances and competition over scarce resources. This raises a critical challenge: even well intended development efforts can shift local power balances, unintentionally sparking new cycles of violence.

Koren’s team collected data on a range of climate projects across the country, from village to county level, including their locations, scope, funding periods, and the degree of community involvement. The results revealed a mixed picture.

Some programmes helped reduce communal violence, particularly those that addressed multiple local challenges at once, such as combining drought resistant farming methods with support for small businesses. These interventions gave communities viable alternatives to violence and helped ease pressure on limited resources during climate shocks.

However, the research also found that nearly all climate and food security programmes were linked to an increase in clashes between government forces and armed rebel groups. This was not because growing food was inherently provocative, but because such interventions increased the value of land and resources, attracting military or political interest in contested areas.

In militarised zones, access to improved land or water becomes a strategic asset, which can trigger competition between groups. The result is that climate aid, if not well targeted or timed, may inadvertently escalate violence.

Yet in areas affected by militia or intercommunal conflict, some programmes had the opposite effect. Interventions that were flexible, community driven, and aimed at strengthening local economies were associated with reduced levels of violence, especially during extreme weather events.

The findings suggest that climate adaptation programmes must be viewed not just as technical solutions, but as complex social and political processes. Projects should be tailored to the local context, with full participation from affected communities, and designed to address overlapping environmental and security risks.

Notably, the study found that such programmes had the most positive impact during periods of intense climate stress, such as droughts or floods. Even imperfect projects helped stabilise livelihoods and reduce tensions at those critical moments. In contrast, projects introduced during milder weather periods had little or no effect on local conflict levels.

Looking beyond South Sudan, the study argues that these lessons could help other conflict-prone countries in the region such as Uganda, Ethiopia, and Nigeria, where similar dynamics may play out between climate change and localised violence.

To better prepare South Sudan for future climate and conflict risks, the study recommends four key strategies:

+Prepare for multiple climate threats. Projects should anticipate both floods and droughts and focus on climate-smart agriculture, food security, and basic services like water management.

+Focus on acute climate stress periods. Projects introduced during high-stress climate events are more likely to reduce violence. For example, community food banks and inclusive resource-sharing committees may help communities cope peacefully during times of scarcity.

+Link climate adaptation with broader reforms. Long-term success depends on secure land tenure and access to livelihoods for people displaced or affected by climate change.

+Set up early warning systems. These systems can detect signs of brewing conflict and allow for preventive interventions, protecting both civilians and aid infrastructure.