OBSERVARE

Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL15 N2, DT3

Thematic Dossier – Climate and Security

April 2025

SECURITY AND POLITICAL INSTABILITY:

A NEXUS BETWEEN FOOD, WATER, HEALTH AND CLIMATE CHANGE?

JOÃO CARLOS MARQUES SIMÕES

joaosimoes3939@gmail.com

Centro de Estudos Jurídicos, Económicos, Internacionais e Ambientais da Universidade Lusíada

(Portugal). Orcid: 0000-0002-7859-4668.

Abstract

This article seeks to analyze the relationship between political instability, security and climate

change. In it, we seek to identify climatic and political, social and economic factors that

contribute to scrutinize situations of political and social instability. In light of this analysis, we

come to the conclusion that climate change is not in itself a source of conflict, but instead

rather relates to pre-existing factors of instability, and may thus lead to armed conflicts in

terms of a multi-causal logic. This study adopts a qualitative, multi-disciplinary approach,

combining theoretical analysis and case studies, bent on examining the intersection of climate

change, security, and instability. It draws on secondary data sources, including academic

literature, policy reports, and international security assessments, to identify patterns of

environmental stress and their socio-political consequences. This approach offers us a

comprehensive understanding of the multi-layered relationship between climate change and

political instability..

Keywords

Climate change, Food security, Political instability, Security, Water resources.

Resumo

Este artigo procura analisar a relação entre instabilidade política, segurança e alterações

climáticas. Para isso, procurámos identificar fatores climáticos, políticos, sociais e económicos

que contribuem para o desencadear de situações de instabilidade política e social. À luz dessa

análise, concluímos que as alterações climáticas não são, por si só, fontes diretas de conflito,

estando relacionadas com fatores de instabilidade pré-existentes, podendo, assim, levar à

ocorrência de conflitos armados numa lógica multicausal. O presente estudo adota uma

abordagem qualitativa e multidisciplinar, combinando uma abordagem teórica com estudos

de caso, no intuito de examinar as possíveis relações entre alterações climáticas, segurança

e instabilidade. O estudo recorre a fontes de dados secundárias, incluindo literatura

académica, relatórios de instituições políticas e relatórios internacionais de segurança, para a

identificação de padrões de stress ambiental e das suas consequências sociopolíticas. Essa

abordagem permite uma compreensão abrangente das relações multinível entre as alterações

climáticas e instabilidade política.

Palavras-chave

Alterações climáticas, Instabilidade política, Recursos hídricos, Segurança, Segurança

alimentar.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL15 N2, DT3

Thematic Dossier – Climate and Security

April 2025, pp. 88-111

Security and political instability: A nexus between food, water, health and climate change?

João Carlos Marques Simões

How to cite this article

Simões, João Carlos Marques (2025). Security and political instability: A nexus between food,

water, health and climate change?. Janus.net, e-journal of international relations. VOL15 N2, TD3

- Thematic Dossier – Climate and Security. April 2025, pp. 88-111. DOI

https://doi.org/10.26619/1647-7251.DT0225.5.

Article submitted on December 19, 2024 and accepted for publication on March 25, 2025.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL15 N2, DT3

Thematic Dossier – Climate and Security

April 2025, pp. 88-111

Security and political instability: A nexus between food, water, health and climate change?

João Carlos Marques Simões

SECURITY AND POLITICAL INSTABILITY:

A NEXUS BETWEEN FOOD, WATER, HEALTH AND CLIMATE

CHANGE?

JOÃO CARLOS MARQUES SIMÕES

1. Introduction

When we talk about security, we often talk about a sense of freedom from physical and

psychological threats and freedom from necessity. These two dimensions ingather two

fundamental pillars of human security, freedom from fear and freedom from want.

However, security has historically been interpreted as the protection of the state and its

interests, which is an eminently realist narrative that, despite competing in the academic

domain with liberalism, was a dominant view until the 1990s.

The end of the Cold War and the emergence of a post-bipolar International System has

facilitated the transformation of the way we look at security, so that it integrates both

so-called traditional threats and non-traditional or unconventional threats that tend to

focus on the individual (figure 1).

Traditionally, security as the security of the state is oriented towards preserving its

territorial integrity and maintaining its political sovereignty (Attinà, 2016). The same

author goes on to say that

“means, which are also important in defining traditional security, consist of

weapons, armaments systems, and the military, but diplomatic means like

pacts and alliances aimed at building special relations between states for

security purposes are also means of traditional security” (Attinà, 2016,p.175).

As we have seen, the traditional security agenda contrasts with the non-conventional

security agenda, which tends to focus on the individual and includes issues such as

energy security, food security and environmental security, among others.

The traditional agenda itself is also malleable, not only because many of these non-

conventional threats have the potential to affect the territorial integrity of the state, for

example through rising sea levels, but also because the agenda itself is subject to

scientific and technological developments, the evolution of ideas and the changing

dynamics of the international system.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL15 N2, DT3

Thematic Dossier – Climate and Security

April 2025, pp. 88-111

Security and political instability: A nexus between food, water, health and climate change?

João Carlos Marques Simões

But why do we focus on environmental issues? Environmental issues really began to

appear on the international agenda in the mid-1960s and early 1970s.

However, it

wasn't until the end of the Cold War that there was a qualitative leap in environmental

issues on the international agenda in the late 1980s and early 1990s. As we have

mentioned, this is a journey that began in the 1960s and, as such, it is justified to look

at four phenomena of political and social transformation that occurred from that period

onwards (Simões, 2024a).

The first of these phenomena concerns the development of social awareness of climate

and environmental issues in developed countries. The development of this awareness is

accompanied and promoted firstly by the dissemination of the work of figures such as

Rachel Carson, David Suziki, Jacques Cousteau and David Attenborough. Secondly, by

the proliferation of non-governmental organizations focused on environmental issues,

such as the World Life Fund, Friends of Earth and Greenpeace. And thirdly, by the

proliferation of international summits on environmental issues, such as the Stockholm

Conference in 1972 (Barnett, 2010; Simões, 2024a).

The second phenomenon, which began arising in the 1970s, concerns the increase in the

number of academics adopting a critical stance on orthodox security postures, which

were incapable of responding to environmental challenges. The third phenomenon, the

climate of “thaw” associated with the end of the Cold War, made it possible to open up

international agendas to debate new security issues. Thus, at the end of the 20th century

and the beginning of the 21st century, environmental, food and energy issues gained a

prominent role in the security debate (Simões, 2024a).

Finally, the fourth phenomenon concerns the centrality of a greater global awareness of

the impacts of climate change, not only on ecosystems, but also on human well-being

and security. As a result, there should be also a wider awareness of the risks of a lack of

access to food, drinking water, fertile soil, and the political instability that can result from

this (Simões, 2024a).

In this article we seek to analyze the relationships between environmental insecurity,

particularly in terms of its manifestation through food, water and health insecurity, and

political instability. Given this end, from a methodological standpoint, we used concrete

examples to better operationalize the theoretical component in study. Furthermore, in

the context of methodology, we resorted to a bibliographical and documental analysis in

order to operationalize our study.

The article is divided into four parts. The first part identifies and analyzes different

perspectives on environmental security, which vary from the referent object to the level

There is a diverse set of factors that contribute to explaining why, from the mid-1960s and early 1970s,

environmental issues have been gaining additional importance on the international agenda. These factors range

from the political and economic to the social levels (Gomes, 2018; Gomes & Leong, 2023; Simões, 2024a),

namely with changes in social awareness of the importance of the environment and the state of global

environmental degradation, the dissemination of the scientific work of personalities such as David

Attenborough, Jacques Cousteau, Rachel Carson, and David Suziki, the establishment and proliferation of

environmentalist social movements and environmental organizations such as Green Peace, the World Life Fund

and Friends of Earth, the proliferation of international summits on the environment and reports on the state of

the environment, such as the “Our Common Future” report, as well as other factors such as the impact of the

oil shocks, the greater number of academics with a critical stance on environmental issues and the end of the

Cold War.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL15 N2, DT3

Thematic Dossier – Climate and Security

April 2025, pp. 88-111

Security and political instability: A nexus between food, water, health and climate change?

João Carlos Marques Simões

of analysis. The second part discusses the relationship between conflict dynamics and

climate change. The third part analyzes the different traditional and unconventional

threats associated with environmental security, so that along with territorial integrity,

resource security, food security, health security and the security of migratory flows are

analyzed. Finally, the fourth part looks at the security of water resources, looking in

particular at the regional importance of the Tibetan Plateau.

2. Climate change and security

We have already discussed, in the introduction, the traditional perspective of security

and its transition to a focus on human security, which enables both conventional and

non-conventional threats to be integrated into the concept of security (figure 1), so now

we will look at the idea of environmental security.

Figure 1 - Examples of traditional and unconventional security threats

Source: Own production

Let us start by defining what climate change is. Swain (2016, p.151) defines climate

change as “significant variations in the relevant climatic variables, namely temperature,

precipitation and wind, over a certain period of time, usually more than 30 years”. In

addition, climate change can lead to other consequences, such as rising sea levels,

increased frequency and intensity of floods and droughts, and soil erosion, affecting other

sectors such as agriculture, food and health (Simões, 2024a; Swain, 2016).

It can have both natural and anthropogenic causes, with one of the main causes being

human emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. According to Schelling

International security

agenda

Traditional threats

Security of the state's

terriotiral integrity

Security of the state's

political sovereignty

Unconventional

threats

Energy security

Information and

technological

security

Migratory, ethnic

and religious

security

water, environmental

and natural disaster

security

food, health and

epidemiological

security

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL15 N2, DT3

Thematic Dossier – Climate and Security

April 2025, pp. 88-111

Security and political instability: A nexus between food, water, health and climate change?

João Carlos Marques Simões

(2000), the greenhouse effect is the result of a global collective good “since the

atmosphere is owned by no one, no one has sufficient incentive to control the changes

caused by carbon emissions. Moreover, the carbon emitted has the same effect

regardless of where on Earth it occurs” (p.506 apud Simões, 2024a, p. 47).

Bartnett (2010), identifies six distinct approaches to environmental security (figure 2):

(i) ecological security; (ii) common security; (iii) environmental violence; (iv) national

security; (v) greening defence; (vi) human security.

Figure 2 – Approaches to environmental security

Source: Barnett (2010)

Our first approach concerns “the effects of human behavior on the environment. In this

context, the referent object is the environment in its relationship with its ecological

processes, while man is seen as the main threat and is only safe insofar as he integrates

the environment” (Simões, 2024a, p.52). Given the impact of human activity on the

environment, the idea of ecological security may then be extended to an idea of

Anthropocene security (Dalby, 2009).

The second approach, common security, concerns the security of the so-called global

commons.

In this sense, Simões (2024a, p.52) states that “environmental problems

Common goods derive “from the interests of each individual placed in common with the aim of finding a

collective solution or realization through the action of the group” (Santos, 2001, p.95), but these objectives

can be countered by the individual's particular goals. Historically, the term common good is associated with

the existence of common pastures that would be exploited communally by the residents of a village or town,

and which obeyed certain rules of use and access in order to mitigate the overexploitation of pastoral resources,

for example (Lopes, 2018). It was only in 1968, with the publication of Garret Hardin's “The Tragedy of the

Commons”, that the concept came to be interpreted as “a piece of land with free access, as if there were no

defined ownership or established rules of use” (Lopes, 2018, p.327-328). The concept became even more

abstract and comprehensive when it began to identify what could be classified as a common good, especially

considering that in some cases, the good or property could not always be clearly defined, as is the case with

air, or cases where access rules are not only scarce or non-existent, but are difficult to monitor, as in the case

of the oceans, or cases where the overexploitation of a given good is a global problem, but with different

intensities at different latitudes, as is the case with water (Lopes, 2018). In addition, these goods have a

number of fundamental characteristics, including their global physical nature, their competitive use and the

fact that it is difficult to prevent access to them. In other words, firstly, they are goods that have a physical

presence on a global scale, being used in all regions with differing intensities and are fundamental to sustaining

human life. Secondly, their use is competitive, because even though they are renewable resources, their

intensive use can prevent other actors from using them (Lopes, 2018). Finally, “it is socially difficult to prevent

access to these goods, i.e. they are goods which, although they may be technically and physically appropriate,

are actually goods which all human beings need for their survival and which are so widespread on the planet

that preventing full access to them is extremely difficult” (Lopes, 2018, p.329). Finally, it should be noted that

they are often referred to as res nullius or res communis, in other words, assets that by their nature belong to

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL15 N2, DT3

Thematic Dossier – Climate and Security

April 2025, pp. 88-111

Security and political instability: A nexus between food, water, health and climate change?

João Carlos Marques Simões

such as water scarcity originate in and affect several states. These problems, which affect

several states, are not easily solved by unilateral mechanisms, so their national security

interests force them to act collectively”. In other words, these are problems which –

either because of their causes or their consequences, or simply because of the type of

object they concern – go beyond the borders of the nation-state (Barnett, 2010).

Thirdly, the environmental violence approach focuses on the relationship between the

environment and violent conflicts. It looks at the dispute over access to resources and

challenges the paradox of cooperation versus conflict. This approach will be discussed

below when we talk about resource security issues and the issue of conflicts over water

resources.

The approach has received a lot of criticism, calling into question the idea of climate

change induced conflicts. That is not to say that climate change or environmental issues

cannot be associated with conflict dynamics, but rather that they are not, per se, direct

causes of those dynamics. Rather, and similarly to what we will see below with regard to

food security and resource scarcity, climate change can be related to pre-existing factors

of instability, such as organized crime, terrorism, guerrilla warfare, wars, endemic

poverty, lack of infrastructure, political instability, among others, and can thus contribute

to aggravating the pre-existing situation, thus leading to a degeneration of the political

scenario and its transformation into a conflict through what has been described as the

threat multiplier effect (Simões, 2024a).

The fourth approach, relating to national security, assumes that “regardless of whether

climate change generates violent conflicts or not, it is potentially responsible for

jeopardizing national security in more subtle ways” (Simões, 2024a, p.54; Barnett,

2010). It is in this context that Barnett (2010) considers that climate change can affect

the economic support capacity of the armed forces, but also various industrial sectors,

such as fishing, agriculture, mining, tourism, among others, which can also be adversely

affected by climate change, consequently negatively affecting the state's economic

sector. Below we will return to the analysis of the impact of climate change on national

security, with a specific focus on territorial integrity.

Fifthly, the approach to the relationship between the armed forces and climate change

is, according to Barnett (2010), profoundly contradictory, since the objective of the

armed forces (winning wars) is usually contrary to that of environmental movements

seeking to promote sustainable development. In fact, as a general rule, wars almost

always result in the environmental degradation as the outcome of the conflict scenario,

as was seen in Japan with the use of nuclear weapons, in Vietnam with Agent Orange,

the destruction of crops in Eritrea or the burning of oil wells in Kuwait (Barnett, 2010;

Simões, 2024a).

Moreover, war has several other impacts on the environment, such as the predation of

resources to sustain the war effort, when it is often these same natural resources that

trigger the conflict (Barnett, 2010).

no one, or that by belonging to the community as a whole cannot be appropriated by any private individual,

nor limited by the particular jurisdiction of an actor, since as we have been mentioning here, they are shared

by all of humanity and as such constitute its common heritage (Magalhães, 2020; Magalhães et al., 2021).

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL15 N2, DT3

Thematic Dossier – Climate and Security

April 2025, pp. 88-111

Security and political instability: A nexus between food, water, health and climate change?

João Carlos Marques Simões

Finally, with regard to our sixth approach, which is oriented towards human security, it

should be noted that in this context the environment becomes a sector of security and

not an object to be securitized per se. Thus, environmental security encompasses

international security, state security and the security of individuals (Barnett, 2010).

Climate change is perceived as a threat to human security, since individuals are exposed

to different levels of environmental insecurity, depending on where they live, the intensity

of the impacts of climate change on them, their resistance to the damage caused by

these changes and the capacity of humans to adapt to these transformations (Barnett,

2010; Simões, 2024a).

It should also be stressed that environmental insecurity does not exist in a vacuum and

the threat of climate change to human security must be considered in its interrelationship

with other social factors, such as poverty, discrimination, the effectiveness of

government decisions, among other aspects (Barnett, 2010; Simões, 2024a).

For practical purposes, this is the latter approach that we have adopted for the discussion

of the themes to be developed later in this article. Environmental security must be linked

to diverse issues such as protecting biodiversity and guaranteeing civil liability for

environmental damage. We therefore consider environmental security to be a vast area

that encompasses both conventional and unconventional security dynamics, emphasizing

the importance of the environment as the main means of guaranteeing human survival.

This includes various other areas of human security, such as food security, water security

and energy security.

Thus, to a large extent, environmental security presupposes access in quality and

quantity to the most fundamental natural resources for human survival and well-being,

and this access must be stable and perpetuated along transgenerational lines and based

on a logic of rational consumption of these resources.

3. Climate change and conflict

Having given due consideration to environmental security, we will now try to analyze the

possible relationship between conflicts and climate change, so we believe it is justified to

first identify the concept of conflict. In this sense, we have adopted the conceptual

proposal we have already elaborated in other work, thus “a conflict will be a rational (and

therefore human), intentional and social confrontation between incompatible individuals

who, at a given moment and circumstance, dispute exclusively opposing interests,

presupposing the use of coercion, whether violent or not” (Simões, 2024a, p.32).

Climate change is indeed one of the main security threats of the 21st century. Its various

effects, such as global warming, ocean acidification, melting ice caps, rising sea levels,

desertification, changes in temperature and precipitation patterns, have the potential to

pose existential threats to various states and communities (Simões, 2024a,b).

As Swain (2016) points out, “environmental stress is one of the main catalysts of social

insecurity” (p.151), so phenomena such as environmental migrations, resource scarcity,

environmental disasters, extreme natural events such as major cyclones and tropical

storms, in essence phenomena derived from climate change, contribute to accentuating

environmental stress and consequently increasing political instability in a given region.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL15 N2, DT3

Thematic Dossier – Climate and Security

April 2025, pp. 88-111

Security and political instability: A nexus between food, water, health and climate change?

João Carlos Marques Simões

In this sense, there has been much debate about the relationship between climate change

and armed conflicts (Swain, 2016). It is therefore a question of determining the extent

to which climate change is directly responsible for triggering armed conflicts, whether

internal or international. Although climate change can contribute to increasing the

propensity for armed conflict, this is not a direct causal relationship, but rather the

combined interaction of its effects with pre-existing factors of instability (figure 3).

Figure 3 - Relationship between climate change and pre-existing instability

Source: Own production

As Simões (2024a, p.69) points out,

“the argument is not that climate change does not have consequences for

social stability, on the contrary, since it immediately leads to an increase in

the propensity for marginal collective violence and in developing countries.

It's about understanding that despite its consequences, these do not manifest

themselves in the majority of cases as key causes for the development of

conflicts”.

In other words, the various effects caused by climate change interact with pre-existing

factors of instability, such as terrorism and guerrilla warfare, economic instability, great

ethnic and religious diversity, scarcity of resources, famine, among other factors. The

multi-causal interaction between climate change and the factors identified means that,

through what is known as the threat multiplier effect, a situation of instability can worsen

due to the multiplication of threats and degenerate into a potential armed conflict

(Simões, 2024a; Swain. 2016).

Environmental conflicts, particularly those that occur around natural resources that tend

to be scarce, can be classified as vertical when they occur between different levels of

governance, for example between the central government and local or municipal

authorities, and horizontal conflicts when they occur between competing uses, for

example hydro-energy production, grazing, livestock farming, industrial and domestic

water supply, land allocation for agricultural practices, or when they occur between state

Climate

change

Pre-

existing

instability

factors

Greater

propensity to

violent armed

conflict

Threat multiplier

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL15 N2, DT3

Thematic Dossier – Climate and Security

April 2025, pp. 88-111

Security and political instability: A nexus between food, water, health and climate change?

João Carlos Marques Simões

users and, therefore, here we are referring to conflicts directly between states, or when

they occur between non-state users and, therefore, we may be talking about different

communities that need the same resource for different purposes.

With regard to this last type of horizontal conflicts, there are several examples of

communal conflicts in Africa, in which even if the environment or natural resource is not

the direct cause, it may have contributed as a trigger to the conflict. One such case is

the tensions between ethnic Fulani Muslim pastoralists in Nigeria and Christian farmers

in the same country (Furini, 2019). However, disputes between pastoralist communities

and farming communities are a widespread reality throughout Nigeria and, even though

we are not going to discuss that here, the solution is, as Furini (2019) points out, difficult

to achieve.

These types of conflictual dynamics are not limited to Nigeria. In fact, we find

relationships of conflictual tension between farming and pastoral communities all over

Africa, for example in Rwanda, Ethiopia, Cameroon and many other states. We also find

these kinds of conflictual dynamics in Asia, for example in Nepal, India and Pakistan. In

fact, it is important to point out that the possibility of horizontal conflicts over natural

resources is not limited to any particular latitude.

3.1 Climate change, traditional threats versus non-traditional

a) Traditional threats

As regards traditional threats, we shall focus here on the interpretation of climate change

as a threat to national security. Barnett (2010) considers that whether or not climate

change generates violent conflict, it is potentially responsible for undermining national

security in more subtle ways. In other words,

“climate change can affect the economic support capacity of the armed forces,

but also various industrial sectors, such as fishing, agriculture, mining,

tourism, among others, which can also be adversely affected by climate

change, consequently negatively affecting the state's economic sector”

(Simões, 2024a, p.54).

From our perspective there is therefore a link between the economic sphere and national

security, since if the first sphere is ecologically unsustainable, the second could be too.

On the other hand, as Barnett (2010) and Simões (2024a, p.54) point out,

“climate change can jeopardize national security at other levels, starting with

territorial integrity, through an increase in the frequency of phenomena such

as hurricanes, jeopardizing the integrity of critical infrastructures, such as

those responsible for energy production, and water and food distribution”.

McDonald (2013) states that “the national security discourse has been consistently

advanced by representatives of existing national security institutions and by those

attempting to speak to policy-makers” (p.45). In several states, the national authorities

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL15 N2, DT3

Thematic Dossier – Climate and Security

April 2025, pp. 88-111

Security and political instability: A nexus between food, water, health and climate change?

João Carlos Marques Simões

have accepted the idea that climate change must be seen and must be treated as a threat

to national security and territorial integrity, since, in fact, in several cases such as Tuvalu,

climate change threatens the continued territorial existence of the state (Simões, 2024a,

b).

This type of discourse has also been conveyed by various think tanks, where several

personalities point to the threat multiplier effect of climate change (McDonald, 2013;

Simões, 2024a). In other words, the idea that the effects of climate change “are related

to pre-existing factors of instability, such as terrorism, endemic poverty, lack of

resources, organized crime, among others, and that they exacerbate the conditions of

insecurity and instability and could lead to a potential armed conflict” (Simões, 2024a,

p.144).

The responses drawn from this type of discourse lead us to the “recognition of the need

for mitigation strategies, but largely focuses on the ways in which states might adapt to

the manifestations of climate change (...) the suggestion here is that militaries and

defence establishments should become more aware of potential axes of (climate-

induced) conflict” (McDonald, 2013, p.45), as well as developing strategies better able

to protect national interests.

This type of discourse also has the potential not only to fail to address the causes of

climate change, but also to define those most affected as potential threats. Firstly,

because populations forced to move due to intense and abrupt natural disasters can be

seen as a threat to the territorial integrity of another state.

Consequently, we may find ourselves in a situation where instead of guaranteeing the

safety of those most vulnerable to the effects of climate change, we end up protecting

ourselves from the supposed threat posed by these “others” (Campbell, 2008; Podesta

& Ogden, 2007; Schwartz & Randall, 2003). This is a particularly relevant issue when we

consider the degree of vulnerability of Small Island Developing States (SIDS) to climate

change and the risk of forced displacement faced by some of these communities (Simões,

2024b).

b) Unconventional threats

The following section seeks to summarize the unconventional implications of climate

change in the field of security. It is therefore worth highlighting its impacts on resource

security, food security, health security and the security of migratory flows.

In this sense, and starting with resource security, it is worth beginning by understanding

what is meant by natural resources. On this issue, Gomes and Leong (2023) state that

“taking into account that the environment is a natural substrate for human use, it is

common to alternate or synonymize the concepts environmental good and natural

resource” (p.49), however there are differences that need to be demystified. An

environmental asset is any element of nature, while a natural resource is any natural

asset with economic value (Gomes & Leong, 2023).

There are many natural resources that can generate insecurity and disputes, but we will

only look at two of them. Firstly, and in this section, oil and, secondly and later on, water

resources.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL15 N2, DT3

Thematic Dossier – Climate and Security

April 2025, pp. 88-111

Security and political instability: A nexus between food, water, health and climate change?

João Carlos Marques Simões

Oil is first and foremost a non-renewable resource, which means that its availability on

planet Earth is limited. Oil has also been one of the great engines of industrialization and

development for the major global powers, a factor that gives it particular relevance in

the race for global hegemony. Hydrocarbon reserves are essentially concentrated in

geopolitically sensitive areas such as the Middle East, Central Asia and the Caspian

region. In addition,

“the risk of a conflict based on the oil factor is very real, all the more so

because the strong dependence of industrial countries, which are major

consumers of oil - from which they have made their main source of energy -

makes them vulnerable. In fact, they are exposed to the risk of a suspension

of supplies, with oil then being used as a weapon by the producing countries”

(Boniface, 2003, p.86).

This is undoubtedly one way of looking at the importance of resource security, but both

the abundance of resources and the scarcity of resources, for different reasons, are likely

to generate conflicts and instability. In the case of oil, not a few conflicts have developed

between both oil-producing parties, nor are there few conflicts that have taken place

within a state in order to guarantee control of the oil by a particular group.

With regard to the implications for food security, it is worth considering the conceptual

proposal developed by the FAO, according to which food security is made up of six pillars

(FAO, 2009; FAO et al., 2021; HLPE, 2020): (i) availability; (ii) access; (iii) utilization;

(iv) stability; (v) agency; (vi) sustainability.

When stressing availability we mean the existence of food at the level of production,

distribution and trade. It is important to note that food availability is only one of the three

With regard to food security, there is also a need for a brief note on transgenic or genetically modified

organisms. In 1994, the first genetically modified food was introduced to the US market - the Flavr Savr tomato

- which turned out to be a commercial fiasco and was withdrawn from the market in 1997 (Silva, 2018). Despite

the initial failures in the commercialization of transgenic organisms, today the cultivation area of these products

already reaches around 180 million hectares, of which more than 90% is divided between the USA, Brazil,

Argentina, India, Canada and China (Silva, 2018). According to the same author, transgenic organisms, “ more

than a planned commitment to plant improvement, they represent a fortuitous agronomic evolution” (Silva,

2018, p.224). There is no doubt that genetically modified organisms can and do have an impact on food safety.

According to Qaim and Kouser (2013), genetically modified organisms can fundamentally affect food security

in three ways: firstly, they can contribute to increased food production and thus increase the availability of food

locally, regionally and globally. Secondly, they can affect the very safety and quality of agricultural crops, since

“crops with new traits can be associated with food safety risks, which have to be assessed and managed case

by case” (Qaim & Kouser, 2013, p.1), and thirdly, genetically modified crops can have economic and social

impacts among farming communities, particularly with regard to small farmers, since these genetically modified

crops can influence the ease of access to food for farmers themselves.

In addition, genetically modified organisms can be an important tool for safeguarding food security at a global

level, but particularly in developing countries. This is primarily because it is possible to genetically modify food

products to make them more resistant, for example, to certain extreme climates, such as dry, hot or saline

climates. Likewise, the use of genetically modified organisms also makes it possible to increase the nutritional

value of food, as is the case with golden rice, a product modified to provide high amounts of vitamin A (Barrell

& French, 2024). On the other hand, as we have mentioned, the risks of using genetic engineering in food must

be assessed on a case-by-case basis, so even though its risks are not yet fully understood, it should be noted

that the use of this type of technology can have negative impacts on the health of individuals, which are still

being studied. Furthermore, it can have negative impacts on the ecosystem, through the contamination of

“wild” plants and their progressive replacement by modified plants, leading to a potential loss of biodiversity

(Barrell & French, 2024). Consequently, although genetically modified organisms can contribute significantly to

mitigating the risk of food insecurity, we must not ignore their potential risks to both human health and the

security of natural ecosystems.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL15 N2, DT3

Thematic Dossier – Climate and Security

April 2025, pp. 88-111

Security and political instability: A nexus between food, water, health and climate change?

João Carlos Marques Simões

100

general components of food systems, the other two being access and utilization (Gregory

et al., 2005). Access refers to the allocation of food and the ability of individuals to afford

it. Utilization refers in practical terms to the consumption of food and the metabolism of

individuals, i.e. in order to achieve food security, the food consumed must be sufficient

to meet the physiological needs of each individual (Gregory et al., 2005). In addition, as

Loring and Gerlach (2009) point out, the health of individuals also affects the utilization

of food, since it is their health that controls how food is metabolized, so the presence of

intestinal parasites, for example, can hinder the maximization of the utilization of

nutrients from the food consumed.

Insofar as stability is concerned, it relates to the possibility of obtaining food continuously

over time. It should be noted here that food insecurity does not necessarily have to be a

perpetual reality, in fact it rarely is, and can manifest itself in a seasonal, transitory or

chronic way. In this sense, there are various factors that affect and determine the

duration of food insecurity, from natural disasters, instability in the markets,

unemployment and conflicts to factors such as fluctuating production patterns according

to the seasons.

The last two pillars, agency and sustainability, relate respectively to the ability of

consumers to choose of their own accord the food products they want to consume,

produce and distribute in food production systems and, in the case of sustainability, the

ability of a food system to provide for food needs in a safe and nutritious way in the long

term and without jeopardizing the economy, social structures and natural resources that

must guarantee food security for future generations (HLPE, 2020).

From these pillars, we can conclude that food safety is “a situation that exists when all

people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and

nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and

healthy life” (FAO et al., 2018). Climate change strongly threatens food security in that

it jeopardizes food systems, including crops, livestock and aquaculture, but also the food

distribution system itself (O'Neill et al., 2022; Mirzabaev et al., 2023).

How does climate change affect food security? The answer unfolds into various processes

and phenomena exacerbated and accelerated by climate change, such as global warming,

droughts, floods, changes in rainfall patterns, the occurrence of more extreme and more

intense events, among other phenomena. In addition, these processes interact with pre-

existing conditions of insecurity (figure 4), such as poverty, scarcity or difficulty in

accessing nutritious food, social discrimination, war, among many other conditions

(O’Neill et al., 2022).

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL15 N2, DT3

Thematic Dossier – Climate and Security

April 2025, pp. 88-111

Security and political instability: A nexus between food, water, health and climate change?

João Carlos Marques Simões

101

Figure 4 - Relationship between climate change and pre-existing instability

Source: Own production

Climate change, in addition to potentially impacting the global food production system,

has more direct and “tangible” implications when we talk about the number of people at

risk of hunger, and the number of people at risk of malnutrition (Mirzabaev et al., 2023).

With regard to concrete figures, as of 2021, 720 to 811 million people were malnourished,

while around 2.3 billion people were undernourished (FAO et al., 2021). According to the

Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, around 200,000 people are in a level of

catastrophic food insecurity, while 32.3 million people are in a level of food security

emergency, 112.3 million people are in a level of food insecurity crisis and 210 million

people are in a level of food stress (The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification

(IPC), 2022).

In addition, “certain areas of recurrent food insecurity correspond to regions where

conflicts persist. In Angola, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Uganda, Sudan and Chad, for

example, drought-induced falls in production have been notoriously exacerbated by

hostilities” (Boniface, 2003, p.81). Similarly, situations of long-lasting malnutrition,

which are likely to worsen, often precede ruptures in the limits of society's elasticity, thus

leading to internal or transnational tensions, as was the case in Rwanda before the 1990

crisis or in Uganda before 1979 (Boniface, 2003).

This elastic limit refers to the limit of stress that may be applied to a material before it

stops behaving elastically and becomes permanently deformed. In the case of human

communities, this limit can be reached in a variety of ways, resulting in a breakdown of

tolerance in the face of a diverse set of undesirable conditions that are unfavorable to

human well-being, such as economic instability, political insecurity, persecution and lack

of freedoms, food insecurity, among many other conditions.

With regard to health security, it should be noted that this is a concept that refers to

activities and measures to mitigate threats to public health and ensure the health of

populations (Durbak & Strauss, 2005; WHO, n.d.). According to Morrison and Bliss

(2025), “climate crisis is increasingly recognized to be a health crisis. It is a crisis marked

by higher mortality, costly illnesses, and increased risks of new biological pathogens”,

the same authors also point out that “the most visible climate-related factors

endangering health are dangerous forms of heat, along with wildfires and smoke, as well

Climate

change Food

insecurity Pre-existing

instability

aggravated

food

insecurity

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL15 N2, DT3

Thematic Dossier – Climate and Security

April 2025, pp. 88-111

Security and political instability: A nexus between food, water, health and climate change?

João Carlos Marques Simões

102

as ferocious storms and floods” (Morrison & Bliss, 2025), other phenomena, such as the

rise in the average level of sea water, affect health systems, supply chains and the

provision of health services.

In this sense, we have identified a first class of risks in the climate-health link, which can

be called structural risks, insofar as physical structures, from supply chains to the

structures themselves, are affected by climate change.

A second class of risks may be called biological, in that, “toxic brew is giving rise to

formidable—and difficult to predict—biological threats that spill over from the animal

world to affect human health. It is influencing the seasonal transmission of vector-borne

diseases, such as dengue, and shifting the geographic range in which malaria is reported,

as well” (Morrison & Bliss, 2025).

In this context, it is also worth talking about the impact of heat on the health security of

populations. Thus, according to Vicedo-Cabrera (2022, p.137), “climate change is

responsible for one in three heat-related deaths - accounting for 37% of heat-related

deaths between 1991 and 2018”. The same author also states that “given that this

substantial increase in mortality is occurring with a warming of 0.5 to 1ºC, it is realistic

to expect it to increase in the coming decades as warming progresses to levels above 2,

3 or even 4ºC” (Vicedo-Cabrera, 2022, p.137).

As an example of the impact of climate change on health, we can easily see it in the case

of Bangladesh, India and quite a few other Asian states. Particularly in the case of South

Asia, due to the melting of glaciers on the Tibetan Plateau and the contamination of this

water, “the access to freshwater, which is already a challenge in parts of Bangladesh,

will become even more difficult, spreading the occurrence of health problems related to

the lack of drinkable water and for sanitation purposes” (Ashrafuzzaman & Furini, 2019,

p.408).

Finally, with regard to the security of migratory flows, it should be noted that unlike the

concept of refugees in its traditional form, there is no agreed normative concept to

characterize climate refugees. The UNHCR, for example, instead of using the term climate

refugee, uses the term displaced persons in the context of disasters or climate change,

considering this term to be more accurate than climate refugees (USA for UNHCR, 2024).

By mid-2024, 90 million of the current 123 million forcibly displaced people lived in states

with a high exposure to climate-related risks. This represents an increase of 5 million

people living in extremely sensitive and vulnerable regions compared to 2023 (USA for

UNHCR, 2024).

Many of the refugee or forcibly displaced communities are located in, or originate from,

climatically vulnerable regions, and are particularly susceptible to the effects of climate

change and natural disasters (USA for UNHCR, 2024). In addition, the effects of climate

change and natural disasters can give rise to conflictual dynamics between displaced

communities and host communities, to the extent that in a scenario of resource scarcity,

it is not unlikely that there may emerge dynamics of competition for control and access

to those same resources.

In addition, according to data from USA for UNHCR (2024), “the number of countries

projected to face extreme climate-related hazards is expected to rise from 3 to 65,

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL15 N2, DT3

Thematic Dossier – Climate and Security

April 2025, pp. 88-111

Security and political instability: A nexus between food, water, health and climate change?

João Carlos Marques Simões

103

including many refugee-hosting countries like Cameroon, Chad, South Sudan, Nigeria,

Brazil, India and Iraq. Together, these 65 countries host more than 40 percent of all

people currently living in displacement, while half of the countries experience fragility”.

The term climate refugee was introduced into the academic debate by Lester Brown in

1976, when he defined them as individuals who are forced to leave their homes due to

changes in the environment around them, jeopardizing their well-being and livelihoods

(Brown et al., 1976). Meanwhile, El-Hinnawi (1985) defines environmental refugees as

“environmental refugees are defined as those people who have been forced to leave their

traditional habitat, temporarily or permanently, because of a marked environmental

disruption (natural and/or triggered by people) that jeopardized their existence and/or

seriously affected the quality of their life” (p.4).

The same author also considers that we can refer to three categories of climate refugees:

firstly, those who have been forced to move temporarily and, when the disruptive

environmental phenomenon is over and the affected area is rehabilitated, they will be

able to return to their place of origin (El-Hinnawi, 1985).

Secondly, it refers to those

who have to be permanently relocated to a new place of residence, being displaced due

to irreversible changes in the environment of their place of origin.

Thirdly, people who

move, temporarily or permanently, within the territory of their state, or between states,

in search of better living conditions. In this type of flow, the motivation is related to

economic well-being, since it is assumed that the natural resources of the territory of

origin have been so heavily exploited or depleted that they are no longer able to meet

the basic needs of individuals (El-Hinnawi, 1985).

Each of these types of refugees is associated with the creation of new socio-economic,

political, cultural and even environmental problems, since human displacement in large

groups has an impact on the surrounding environment. In practical terms, climate

migration is a subtype of forced mobility, caused by natural disasters, both sudden and

gradual, by the occurrence of extreme events, or by anthropogenic pressure factors. In

addition, climate-induced displacement can interact with various other forms of

insecurity, such as food insecurity, scarcity of resources or loss of territory to the

environment.

As Boniface (2003, p.75) points out, “the development of crisis hotspots and inequalities

suggest that these flows (internal or international migration) could increase

substantially”.

In addition, climate-induced displacement does not necessarily have to be international,

which is why it is often referred to not as refugees, but as climate migrants. The

International Organization for Migration has defined climate migrants as “persons or

groups of persons who, predominantly for reasons of sudden or progressive change in

the environment that adversely affects their lives or living conditions, are obliged to leave

We can consider here the cases of populations forced to relocate due to earthquakes, cyclones or even

industrial accidents with disruptive environmental impacts.

The construction of dams, the drying up of lakes or the rerouting of rivers can lead to the permanent forced

displacement of certain populations.

Small producers and farmers who have their land flooded or contaminated by saline water or other

contaminants often don't have the financial capacity to restore their properties, so they end up abandoning

them and moving to other urban centers in search of new jobs.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL15 N2, DT3

Thematic Dossier – Climate and Security

April 2025, pp. 88-111

Security and political instability: A nexus between food, water, health and climate change?

João Carlos Marques Simões

104

their habitual homes, or choose to do so, either temporarily or permanently, and who

move either within their country or abroad” (IOM, 2007, p.33).

This is an admittedly vague and flexible conceptual proposal, which makes it possible to

include a diverse set of population movements motivated by different environmental

events – thus encompassing forced or voluntary, temporary or permanent, internal or

transnational, individual or group and short or long-distance displacements.

It should also be noted that the nature of the displacement depends not only on the type

of climatic event, i.e. whether it is a gradual event such as desertification or a rise in the

average sea level or a sudden event such as floods and cyclones, but also, and perhaps

mainly, on the interaction of these events with the socio-economic, cultural and political

environment of a given population.

4. Climate change and conflicts over water resources

One of the main challenges concerns international agreements for sharing freshwater

resources, since the water present in international river basins will also inevitably be

affected by climate change, varying to a greater or lesser extent from region to region

(Swain, 2016).

According to Simões (2025)

“rivers are important sources of various types of power, contributing to

human interconnectivity and playing an important role in the circulation of

economic goods. Likewise, rivers contribute to the production and

maintenance of the energy sector, particularly the hydro-energy sector. On

the other hand, rivers are responsible for the transportation of important

natural resources, they contribute to the maintenance of various ecosystems

and, perhaps most importantly, they play an important role in maintaining

human life, starting with the use of their waters for irrigating agricultural fields

and direct consumption” (pp. 57-58).

The same author points out that: “water conflicts in transboundary river basins are

natural relations of predatory dispute over natural resources. In many cases, these

relationships are seen as zero-sum games, in that the interests of the upstream state or

states are often at odds with the interests of the downstream state or states” (Simões,

2025, p.61), and adds that “this does not mean, however, that relations between riparian

states are strictly conflictual. Rather, it is a conjunctural issue, often determined or at

least influenced by internal factors on each side, as well as the historical relationship

between the parties. Other factors, such as external intervention by other powers, which

aim to create spheres of influence in the same region, often contribute to determining

the course of regional relations, as the different spheres of influence in the same region

often compete with each other” (Simões, 2025 p.62).

In short, the parties involved in the management of an international river basin can

choose to diverge in their actions and consequently enter into a relationship of

competition for control of the resources, or they can choose to converge and enter into

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL15 N2, DT3

Thematic Dossier – Climate and Security

April 2025, pp. 88-111

Security and political instability: A nexus between food, water, health and climate change?

João Carlos Marques Simões

105

a relationship of cooperation (Lopes, 2009, 2010; Simões, 2025; Swathi, 2020). It is in

this sense that water, in its dynamics as a shared resource, can either be a factor in

promoting conflict or cooperative dynamics (Lopes, 2009, 2010).

Indeed, several international river basins have seen a proliferation of agreements

regulating the use of their water resources, as well as the creation of specific

organizations to manage their resources, such as the Mekong River Commission, the

International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine, the Senegal River Development

Commission, among others.

Furthermore, according to Baranyai (2020, p.18),

“within the first generation of hydropolitical studies two distinct schools of

thought emerged: one concentrating on the potential of conflicts triggered by

competition for water and one focusing on the cooperation imperative over

transboundary water resources (…) More recently, a new wave of research

has emerged with a view to overcoming the conflict and cooperation divide.

Scholars of this branch recognise the inherent complexity of water relations,

underlining that conflict and cooperation are not necessarily contradictory,

but can occur simultaneously”.

There are also several other arguments used to explain why wars over water resources

tend not to occur, which is not the same as saying that diplomatic disputes do not occur,

because these are a constant reality in the field of international hydro-politics (Simões,

2024a).

The same author lists the following arguments: (i) historical; (ii) strategic; (iii) shared

interests; (iv) durability of institutions; (v) economic interests; (vi) virtual water; (vii)

naivety; (viii) hydro-hegemony. The historical argument reflects the scarcity of recent

conflicts motivated directly by water factors, and those that have occurred have mainly

been local conflicts between tribes, certain sectors of the population or, in some cases,

states directly dependent on these resources (Simões, 2024a). As far as strategic

arguments are concerned, the same author states that “despite the pressing possibility

of conflict between countries with a greater strategic advantage and countries with a

lesser strategic advantage” (Simões, 2024a, p.76), states tend to opt for avenues of

cooperation in order to best achieve their strategic goals.

In the same sense, shared interests, materialized in bilateral or multilateral treaties,

show that sharing and cooperation around water resources can be the most beneficial

scenario. The same author points out, with regard to the role of institutions, that “the

construction of institutions dedicated to the management of water resources can be a

factor in countering the argument of water wars, especially when it comes to stable

organizations with a high degree of durability” (Simões, 2024a, p.76), and adds that their

treaties “with a greater or lesser degree of flexibility to adapt to the circumstances of

each period, contribute to a stable and lasting water regime” (Simões, 2024a, p.76).

With regard to economic interests, this is the idea that the costs necessary to carry out

a water war do not justify the possible gains. As far as virtual water is concerned, this

argument

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL15 N2, DT3

Thematic Dossier – Climate and Security

April 2025, pp. 88-111

Security and political instability: A nexus between food, water, health and climate change?

João Carlos Marques Simões

106

“explains why water wars do not exist, since virtual water is an alternative

source of water, as well as a strategic asset in preventing disputes arising

from water scarcity contexts (...) it explains how the countries most affected

by water scarcity, or deficits, can reduce this relative lack of water resources

by obtaining them virtually through the import of agricultural products (...)

However, virtual water is not a miracle solution. Firstly, because not only are

agricultural markets not perfect, being subject to quality standards, barriers

and customs tariffs, but prices on world markets fluctuate, or the

abandonment of production of certain crops puts national sovereignty at risk

in a scenario of global scarcity” (Simões, 2024a, p.77).

With regard to the argument of social ingenuity, the same author states that “this

assumes that water wars have been scarce precisely because, due to so-called social

ingenuity, communities develop new adaptive strategies, for example, by creating

technical, economic and social instruments, as well as by adopting new ideas that make

it possible to adapt to a circumstance of environmental scarcity” (Simões, 2024a, p.77).

Finally, with regard to the hydro-hegemony argument, Zeitoun and Warner (2006)

consider that, to a large extent, the fundamental factor for water wars not to occur is the

existence of a hydro-hegemonic power in a given transnational basin, as is the case, for

example, with China on the Mekong River or Egypt on the Nile River. In addition, they

point out that hegemonic power produces a regional order and, precisely because of the

hegemonic status, it is unlikely that the other states in the basin will challenge this order

(Simões, 2024a; Zeitoun & Warner, 2006).

An important region to consider when talking about hydro-political conflicts is Asia, in

particular the Tibetan Plateau. Glacial melting will have very significant impacts on Asia's

main river basins, such as the Ganges River, the Mekong River, the Salween River, the

Irrawady River, the Brahmaputra River, among other rivers that originate on the Tibetan

Plateau and contribute to the water supply of around 50% of the world's population

distributed across China, Nepal, Bhutan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Thailand, Myanmar, Laos,

Cambodia and Vietnam (Chellaney, 2013; Leal, 2019; Simões, 2024a; Swain, 2016).

In addition, water resources are a source of political tension between China and India,

India and Pakistan, and China with most of the Southeast Asian mainland. Since both

China and India need to supply their growing metropolitan areas, characterized by a

growing middle class and new water needs. Likewise, the need to capture water resources

also serves to promote China's economic growth, being important for both agricultural

production and the production of hydropower (Chellaney, 2013; Leal, 2019; Simões,

2024a; Zeitoun et al., 2020).

In other latitudes, desertification, scarcity of water resources, and changes in rainfall

patterns have become a growing security concern in various riverine regions such as the

Jordan River basins, the Aral Sea basin, the African Great Lakes basins, the Zambezi

basin and the Nile basin, among other river basins.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL15 N2, DT3

Thematic Dossier – Climate and Security

April 2025, pp. 88-111

Security and political instability: A nexus between food, water, health and climate change?

João Carlos Marques Simões

107

5. Final thoughts on climate change, political instability and security

Climate change affects international security in many various ways and forms, so it not

only draws implications for State security in the traditional security approach, but it also

has profound and diverse implications for human security.

This study has explored the intricate nexus between climate change, water, food, and

health security, demonstrating how these elements are deeply interwoven with political

stability and security. While climate change is not a direct cause of violent conflicts, its

effects act as a threat multiplier, exacerbating pre-existing socio-political

vulnerabilities. Water scarcity, food insecurity, and deteriorating public health systems

create conditions that heighten instability, particularly in regions already facing economic

and political fragility.

Furthermore, it is relevant to note that the interconnectedness of water, food, health,

and climate change forms a critical nexus that directly impacts not only human

security, but political stability, and sustainable development. Hence, climate

change exacerbates existing vulnerabilities in all these sectors, intensifying resource

scarcity, economic disparities, and socio-political tensions.

The way in which climate change affects regional stability and the various states depends

on their capacity for resilience and adaptation versus their degree of vulnerability.

In many cases, the capacity for resilience and adaptation depends not only on the

geographical position of the state (for example, whether it is continental or insular), the

possession of natural resources and the ease of access to these resources, but perhaps

fundamentally on its degree of development. Therefore, factors such as endemic poverty,

low levels of literacy, fragile institutions and weak governance, infrastructural deficits,

resource scarcity, hunger, great ethnic and religious diversity, traumas related to armed

conflicts and guerrilla warfare, limited access to health care, among many other factors,

contribute to a decrease in the capacity to mitigate and adapt to climate change, inversely

increasing the likelihood of conflicts occurring.

Migratory flows also contribute to increased political instability, not only because there

are environmental push factors in the states of departure, but also because these

migratory flows also have an impact on the states of arrival.

Lastly, it should also be noted that, despite various international efforts, whether through

a wide range of international conventions and treaties that have been approved since the

late 1960s or through the COPs (Summits of the Parties), the international environmental

agenda has actually entered a phase of stagnation, deeply characterized by the North-

South dichotomy. In fact, despite successive diplomatic efforts, almost everything

remains to be done.

Addressing these challenges requires a paradigm shift in security policy, one that

prioritizes resilience-building, transnational cooperation, and sustainable

resource management. Traditional security frameworks must evolve to incorporate

environmental and human security concerns, recognizing that instability cannot be

mitigated through military measures alone. While international agreements and climate

policies have made some progress, their effectiveness is often hindered by geopolitical

rivalries and economic disparities.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL15 N2, DT3

Thematic Dossier – Climate and Security

April 2025, pp. 88-111

Security and political instability: A nexus between food, water, health and climate change?

João Carlos Marques Simões

108

Thus, it is our understanding that, ultimately, without decisive action, climate change will

continue to amplify instability, compounding humanitarian crises, economic

disruptions, and political fragmentation. Ensuring global security in the 21st century will

depend not only on how states address traditional military threats but also on their ability

to confront the destabilizing forces of environmental change.

References

Ashrafuzzaman, M. D., & Furini, G. L. (2019). Climate change and human health linkages

in the context of globalization: An overview from global to southwestern coastal region

of Bangladesh. Environment International, 127, 402–411.

Attinà, F. (2016). Traditional Security Issues. In J. Wang & W. Song (Eds.), China, the

European Union, and the International Politics of Global Governance (pp. 175–193).

Palgrave Macmillan.

Baranyai, G. (2020). European Water Law and hydropolitics: An Inquiry into the

Resilience of Transboundary Water Governance in the European Union. Springer.

Barnett, J. (2010). Environmental Security. In A. Collins (Ed.), Contemporary Security

Studies (pp. 190–207). Oxford University Press.

Barrell, A., & French, M. (2024, January 5). Genetically modified food: What are the pros

and cons? Medical News Today. Consultado a 19 de Março de 2025, in

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/324576#gm-os-and-the-environment.

Boniface, P. (2003). Guerras do Amanhã. Editorial Inquérito.

Brown, L., McGrath, P. L., & Stokes, B. (1976). Twenty-Two dimensions of the population

problem. Worldwatch Institute, Paper 5, 1-86.

Campbell, K. M. (2008). Climatic cataclysm: The Foreign Policy and National Security

Implications of Climate Change. Rowman & Littlefield.

Chellaney, B. (2013). Water, peace, and war: Confronting the Global Water Crisis.

Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.

Dalby, S. (2009). Security and environmental change. Polity Press.

Durbak, C. K., & Strauss, C. M. (2005). Securimg a Healthier World. In F. Doods & T.

Pippard (Eds.), Human and Environmental Security: An Agenda for Change (pp. 128–

138). EarthScan.

El-Hinnawi, E. (1985). Environmental refugees. UNEP.

FAO. (2009). Declaration on the World Summit on Food Security.

FAO, IFAD, World Food Programme, & WHO. (2018). The State of Food Security and

Nutrition in the World 2018: Building climate resilience for food security and nutrition.

Food & Agriculture Org.

FAO, UNICEF, World Food Programme, & WHO. (2021). Transforming food systems for

food security, improved nutrition and affordable healthy diets for all. FAO.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL15 N2, DT3

Thematic Dossier – Climate and Security

April 2025, pp. 88-111

Security and political instability: A nexus between food, water, health and climate change?

João Carlos Marques Simões

109

Furini, G. (2019). A influência das alterações climáticas na escalada do conflito comunal

entre pastores e agricultores: o caso da etnia Fulani na Nigéria. JANUS.NET, E-journal of

International Relations, 10(2), 35–55.

Gomes, C. A. (2018). Direito Internacional do Ambiente: Uma Abordagem Temática.

AAFDL Editora.

Gomes, C. A., & Leong, H. C. (2023). Introdução ao Direito do Ambiente. AAFDL.

Gregory, P. J., Ingram, J. S. I., & Brklacich, M. (2005). Climate change and food security.

Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci, 360, 2139–2148.

HLPE. (2020). Food Security and Nutrition Building a Global Narrative Towards 2030.

FAO.

IOM. (2007). Discussion Note: Migration and the Environment. International Organization

for Migration.

Leal. (2019). A água como fator de conflitos político-militares no Sul e Sudeste Asiático:

Planalto do Tibete e Rio Brahmaputra. Revista Lusíada. Política Internacional E

Segurança, 17–18, 9–30.

Lopes, P. D. (2009). Sharing water: evolution, threats and challenges. Lusotopie, 16(1),

177–191.

Lopes, P. D. (2010). Governação Internacional de Água: Evoluções e Implicações. In L.

C. Ferreira-Pereira (Ed.), Relações Internacionais: atores, dinâmicas e desafios (pp. 65–

88). Prefácio.

Lopes, P. D. (2018). Bens comuns globais. In M. d. C. P. Neves & N. S. Teixeira (Eds.),

Ética Aplicada: Relações Internacionais (pp. 327–345). Edições70.

Loring, P. A., & Gerlach, S. (2009). Food, culture, and human health in Alaska: an

integrative health approach to food security. Environmental Science & Policy, 12(4), 466–

478.

Magalhães, P. (2020). Climate as a Concern or a Heritage? Addressing the legal structural

roots of climate emergency. Revista Electrónica De Direito, 21(1), 100–134.

Magalhães, P., Costa, A., Morello, G., Guimarães, A. L., & Viegas, J. (2021). The

commons as a paradigm shift for a regenerative Anthropocene. Anthropocenica. Revista

De Estudos Do Antropoceno E Ecocrítica, 2, 3–24.

McDonald, M. (2013). Discourses of climate security. Political Geography, 33, 42–51.

Mirzabaev, A., Kerr, R. B., Hasegawa, T., Pradhan, P., Wreford, A., Von Der Pahlen, M.

C. T., & Gurney-Smith, H. (2023). Severe climate change risks to food security and

nutrition. Climate Risk Management, 39, 1–10.

Morrison, J. S., & Bliss, K. E. (4 de Fevereiro de 2025). The Health-Climate-Security

Triad. Center for Strategic and International Studies. Consultado a 18 de Fevereiro de

2025, in https://www.csis.org/analysis/health-climate-security-triad.

O’Neill, B., Van Aalst, M., Ibrahim, Z. Z., Ford, Bhadwal, S., Buhaug, H., Diaz, D., Frieler,

K., Garschagen, M., Magnan, A., Midgley, G., Mirzabaev, A., Thomas, A., & Warren, R.

(2022). Key Risks Across Sectors and Regions. In H. O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, M. Tignor,

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL15 N2, DT3

Thematic Dossier – Climate and Security

April 2025, pp. 88-111

Security and political instability: A nexus between food, water, health and climate change?

João Carlos Marques Simões

110

E. S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, V. Löschke, A.

Möller, & B. Okem (Eds.), Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability.

Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 2411–2538). Cambridge University

Press.

Podesta, J., & Ogden, P. (2007). The security implications of climate change. The

Washington Quarterly, 31, 115–138.

Qaim, M., & Kouser, S. (2013). Genetically modified crops and food security. PLoS ONE,

8(6), e64879.

Santos, V. M. d. (2001). A Humanidade e o seu Património: Reflexões Contextuais sobre

Conceptualidade Evolutiva e Dinâmica Operatória em Teoria das Relações Internacionais.

Instituto Superior de Ciências Sociais e Políticas.

Schwartz, P., & Randall, D. (2003). An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and its

Implications for United States National Security.

Silva, M. (2018). Implicações éticas dos organismos geneticamente modificados. In M.

d. C. P. Neves & V. Soromenho-Marques (Eds.), Ética Aplicada: Ambiente (pp. 223–246).

Edições70.

Simões, J. C. M. (2024a). Conflitos de água no sudeste asiático : segurança humana e a

importância estratégica do Rio Mekong [Dissertação de Mestrado]. Universidade Lusíada

de Lisboa.

Simões, J. C. M. (2024b). SIDS e alterações climáticas: perspetivas sobre o Anel de Fogo

do Pacífico. Polis, 2(8), 69–77.

Simões, J. C. M. (2025). O Ródano: cooperação e competição nas relações franco-suíças.

Lusíada. Política Internacional e Segurança, 29, 51–80.

Swain, A. (2016). As Alterações Climáticas e a Segurança. In R. Duque, D. Noivo, & T.

d. A. e Silva (Eds.), Segurança Contemporânea (pp. 151–163). PACTOR.

Swathi, N. (2020). Water resource conflicts: a game theory approach. Malaya Journal of

Matematik, S(2), 1416–1420.

The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC). (2022). The Integrated Food

Security Phase Classification (IPC). IPC. Consultado a 18 de Fevereiro de 2025, in

https://www.ipcinfo.org/.

USA for UNHCR. (2024, November 12). How climate change impacts refugees and

displaced communities. USA For UNHCR. Consultado a 18 de Março de 2025, in

https://www.unrefugees.org/news/how-climate-change-impacts-refugees-and-

displaced-communities/#Howmanypeoplecouldbedisplacedasaresultofclimatechange.

Vicedo-Cabrera, A. M. (2022). O calor e as doenças. In G. Thunberg (Ed.), O Livro Do

Clima (pp. 137–139). Objetiva.

WHO. (n.d.). Health Security. Consultado a 18 de Fevereiro de 2025, in

https://www.who.int/health-topics/health-security/#tab=tab_1.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL15 N2, DT3

Thematic Dossier – Climate and Security

April 2025, pp. 88-111

Security and political instability: A nexus between food, water, health and climate change?

João Carlos Marques Simões

111

Zeitoun, M., & Warner, J. (2006). Hydro-hegemony: A Framework for Analysis of

Transboundary Water Conflicts. Water Policy, 8(5), 435–460.

Zeitoun, M., Mirumachi, N., & Warner, J. (2020). Water conflicts: Analysis for

Transformation. Oxford University Press.