Why Plenty Of Food Means Plenty Of Conflict

A large body of literature claims that where there is a lack of food, conflict is bound to increase as people battle over limited resources. However, researcher Ore Koren suggests quite the opposite, saying that conflict is likely to increase when food sources are abundant.

- Ore Koren

The notion that food scarcity increases the likelihood of conflict is not a recent one, although it has received increased attention over the past four decades. A growing number of studies draw links between civil war and food scarcity due to environmental conditions such as drought. By and large, the emphasis is on food scarcities, namely that rising temperature and droughts reduce the amount of food resources available locally, which in turn forces actors to obtain access to food via violent means. One study, for example, shows that rebels benefit from higher food crop prices due to scarcity; these allow them to expand territorial control and even establish a local monopoly on violence.

But despite this and other important evidence, an impressive body of research draws a link between the abundance of natural resources and conflict. Food is not only a renewable natural resource, it’s crucial to maintaining the daily life and activities of a group, be it a rebel contingent or a rural community. As a result, areas with more food resources are more valued and so attract more conflict.

The agricultural land can be owned by smallholders who grow food for personal consumption only, or by larger producers who grow food for trade, both internationally and domestically. When discussing conflict over food sources, it’s important to distinguish between four different categories: