The UN Secretary-General made a defining statement in 2023 that “climate breakdown has begun.” This marks a vital shift in how we view global security threats. Climate change and environmental terrorism now stand as connected challenges. Violent extremist organizations have started to take advantage of environmental vulnerabilities during their operations. Europol believes environmental extremism will become more prominent and pose a significant security threat worldwide.
We can already see this threat’s effects in conflict zones. Research reveals that drought played a major role in IS recruitment. Nearly all but one of these fighters in Iraq and Syria joined during severe droughts. This shows how the lack of resources due to climate issues helps extremist groups find new members. These terrorist groups also deliberately use environmental factors as weapons. They control vulnerable populations through tactics like sabotage and resource capture.
This piece looks at how climate change and terrorism work together. It shows how environmental factors lead to radicalization and how terrorist groups exploit natural resources. The implications for global security are far-reaching. These connections matter more than ever as climate-related events become more frequent and severe. This situation could give violent extremist groups more chances to grow their influence.
The Rise of Environmental Terrorism as a Climate Security Threat
Environmental terrorism surfaced in the 1970s as a unique security challenge. It grew with rising ecological awareness and competition for resources. What started as isolated incidents has now become a sophisticated tactic that extremist groups use worldwide.
Historical Evolution of Environmental Terrorism Since 1970
Environmental terrorist tactics have expanded by a lot since the early 1970s. The FBI reports that the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), Earth Liberation Front (ELF), and similar groups have committed over 1,100 criminal acts in the United States since 1976. These attacks caused damages estimated at AED 403.91 million. A notorious cell called “The Family” caused AED 176.25 million worth of arson and vandalism between 1996 and 2001. The FBI listed eco-terrorism as the most serious domestic threat by 2005. While these attacks peaked in the 1980s, environmental terrorism has seen new growth as climate pressures increase.
Distinguishing Between Eco-Terrorism and Environmental Terrorism
People often mix up these two phenomena, but they represent opposite approaches to environmental issues. Environmental terrorism means “the unlawful use of force against in situ environmental resources to deprive populations of their benefits”. These actors oppose the environment and use natural resources as weapons to achieve political goals unrelated to environmental causes. Eco-terrorism, however, targets human structures like roads, buildings, and development projects. These perpetrators claim they defend nature from human interference. This difference matters—one group exploits environmental resources while the other claims to protect them through destructive acts.
Climate Change as a Catalyst for Resource-Based Conflicts
Climate change now acts as a “threat multiplier” for environmental terrorism. Eight of the 15 countries most exposed to climate risks host United Nations peacekeeping or special political missions. The 20 countries most affected by terrorism house 58% of the 830 million people who face global food insecurity. Water-related terrorist incidents have tripled between 2000 and 2022. Regions like the Sahel and Lake Chad Basin face fierce competition for limited resources. This competition tears apart the social fabric and creates opportunities for extremist recruitment. Countries that struggle with both climate vulnerability and political instability become easy targets for environmental terrorism. Groups exploit the lack of resources to gain legitimacy, control territory, and push their ideological agendas.
How Terrorist Organizations Weaponize Environmental Resources
Terrorist organizations now see environmental resources as powerful weapons. These groups have moved past conventional tactics and created sophisticated strategies to control natural resources. They use these resources to maximize their effect on vulnerable populations.
Strategic Control of Water Resources by ISIS (2013-2015)
ISIS targeted water infrastructure as part of its expansion strategy. The group seized the Mosul Dam on August 7, 2014, and gained brief control of Iraq’s largest reservoir. They threatened to release a 15-foot wall of water on Baghdad that could have killed an estimated 500,000 people. The capture of Raqqa led ISIS to take over water services quickly. They imposed taxes and punished those who wouldn’t comply. ISIS reduced water flow at the Ramadi Dam by up to 50%. This affected supplies to Babil, Karbala, Najaf, Qadisiya, and Anbar provinces. Water weaponization became key to ISIS’s warfighting strategy.
Tactical Destruction of Agricultural Infrastructure
Extremist groups damage farming systems to create economic pressure and force population displacement. ISIS closed the Falluja Dam floodgates in April 2014 and diverted water through irrigation channels. This submerged areas up to 100 km away and put Abu Ghraib under 4 meters of water. The group also diverted the Khalis tributary of the Tigris to flood Mansouriya. This action inundated 781 acres of agricultural land. These attacks displaced about 60,000 people who lost their way of life. Terrorist organizations have also poisoned water supplies in Aleppo, Deir ez-Zor, Raqqa, and Baghdad.
Coercive Use of Food and Water During Climate Shocks
Environmental resources become powerful tools of coercion during climate crises. ISIS made herders pay 5,000 shillings (AED 1.84) each time a camel drank from a trough. Farmers in Jilib had to pay at least AED 73.44 before they could sow crops, whatever the size of their land. The group stopped water flow to fields if farmers refused to pay. The capture of Mosul and Tikrit led ISIS to cut water supply to Christian minority villages. Residents had to buy water at AED 22.95 per cubic meter—a price most couldn’t afford. These actions made humanitarian crises worse, especially for women and children who needed to travel greater distances for water.
Case Study: Al-Shabaab’s Water Control Tactics in Somalia
Al-Shabaab shows how water weaponization goes way beyond ISIS’s reach and influence. The group changed its approach after losing major cities. They “started to cut off liberated cities from their water source” to show their power. Al-Shabaab attacked Garbaharey at night and buried the main borehole, even though the government controlled the area. In Hudur, they “deprived us of all access to water” after government forces took control. The group poisoned wells in Somalia in 2017, killing 32 civilians. They also use droughts to their advantage by controlling access points. This directly challenges government relief efforts and puts food deliveries and water wells at risk. This “water terrorism” leaves civilians like Halima with impossible choices. Her son was recruited by Al-Shabaab at the time he was sent to get water from areas under their control.
Climate Change Effects Driving Environmental Terrorism
Climate vulnerability and terrorism overlap in striking ways across the globe. This dangerous combination disrupts global security. Environmental threats now act as powerful catalysts that help extremist groups find and radicalize new members in regions under environmental stress.
Resource Scarcity and Competition in Vulnerable Regions
Environmental degradation shows a clear link between climate fragility and conflict. Statistics paint a stark picture – 58% of the 830 million people who face global food insecurity live in the 20 countries most affected by terrorism. Water-related terrorist incidents have tripled between 2000 and 2022. Countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Mali, and Chad will likely face worse water stress by 2040.
The Sahel region experiences temperature rises 1.5 times faster than the global average. These climate changes speed up the mechanisms that lead to terrorism: people move away, governments weaken, and political instability grows. Such climate disruption tears apart social bonds and forces people to compete fiercely for dwindling resources.
Countries with the lowest peace levels also face the worst resource shortages. About two-thirds of countries that don’t have enough food, water, and face high population growth rank as low or very low peace countries. These nations don’t deal very well with environmental shocks on their own.
Livelihood Insecurity as a Recruitment Tool for Extremist Groups
Extremist organizations take advantage of economic vulnerabilities as climate change destabilizes traditional ways of life. Areas that depend on climate-sensitive jobs create perfect conditions for radicalization. To cite an instance:
- Boko Haram pays monthly salaries ten times the regional minimum wage (AED 2203-2937) to recruits from areas with 75% underemployment rates
- About 60-70% of local IS fighters in Iraq and Syria joined during major droughts because of poor planning and lack of adaptation strategies
- Extremist groups in northern Nigeria and Cameroon target young people who suffer most from climate-related unemployment
Climate changes affect farming, which employs 70% of workers in many affected regions. This creates paths to radicalization as extremist groups present themselves as better alternatives to governments that seem unresponsive. Morocco’s climate pressures have pushed people from rural areas to cities rapidly. This led to more slums, and two-thirds of Moroccan foreign terrorist fighters come from Tangiers slums.
The problem feeds itself. Extremist groups offer economic stability to vulnerable people as climate pressures grow worse. This further weakens government authority in places where environmental and security challenges meet.
Economic and Social Impacts of Environmental Terrorism
Environmental terrorism leaves devastating economic and social scars that run deeper than immediate security threats. These destructive acts create ripple effects that are way beyond the reach and influence of the original attack and fundamentally alter regional stability and people’s safety.
Disruption of Agricultural Production and Food Security
Terrorists strategically manipulate resources to destroy agricultural systems. When ISIS took control of the Ramadi Dam in 2015, they cut the Euphrates River’s water flow to half its normal capacity. This severely limited irrigation water in multiple Iraqi provinces and led to widespread food shortages. Agriculture provides one-sixth of all jobs in many developed nations, which makes it an easy target for terrorist disruption. The Taliban’s deliberate poisoning of university drinking water in Afghanistan killed 30 people and shows another tactic that affects food safety directly.
Population Displacement and Climate Refugees
Resource weaponization forces large populations to flee their homes. ISIS’s control of the Falluja Dam in 2014 flooded over 200 square kilometers of farmland. This devastation forced about 60,000 Iraqis to abandon their livelihoods. Rural communities already face climate pressures and must make impossible choices after environmental attacks. Refugee interviews reveal that 36% of people from Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Afghanistan reported a sudden lack of resources after violence erupted in their regions. This environmental displacement usually starts with people moving to cities before they cross borders as refugees.
Long-term Infrastructure Damage and Recovery Costs
Environmental terrorism’s economic impact lasts for decades after the original attack. Cleaning up deliberate environmental damage requires huge investments—recent conflict in Gaza generated an estimated 39 million tons of debris that needs substantial resources to clear. History shows potentially catastrophic costs: the United Kingdom’s foot-and-mouth disease outbreak caused losses over AED 36.72 billion across tourism and agricultural sectors. U.S. estimates project costs could reach AED 88.13 billion with the destruction of about 13 million animals. These numbers show that targeted environmental attacks create much bigger economic damage than conventional terrorism because agricultural systems and natural resources need years or decades to recover.
Environmental terrorism poses a vital threat to global climate security. Terrorist groups know how to target environmental weak points. They control water resources and disrupt farming systems which creates devastating effects across communities.
The facts paint a clear picture. Climate change makes security risks much worse in vulnerable areas. Research shows droughts led to recruitment of 60-70% of IS fighters. Water-focused terrorist incidents have tripled since 2000. These numbers reveal a dangerous pattern. Terrorist groups adapt quickly and turn natural resources into weapons. Their sophisticated strategies target strong infrastructure and take advantage of resource shortages.
These environmental attacks leave lasting economic damage. Recovery takes decades and costs billions to rebuild. The effects go beyond immediate security concerns. They alter regional stability and force large populations to relocate.
Climate vulnerability’s connection to terrorism becomes more important as global temperatures rise. Terrorist organizations keep finding new ways to exploit the environment. Climate pressures continue to increase. This security threat will likely get worse. Climate change and environmental terrorism need coordinated international action. Any solution must recognize how these issues connect and develop complete strategies to protect vulnerable people and resources.
