The next wars may not be about oil or borders: Climate change is turning food, water and farmland into new sources of conflict across the world

The next major global conflicts may not be driven only by politics, territory or ideology. In some parts of the world, competition for food, farmland and water could become an increasingly powerful source of instability as climate change reshapes agriculture.A new analysis highlighted by DW warns that worsening droughts, extreme weather, geopolitical tensions and disruptions to food and agricultural supply chains are creating a dangerous combination. The risks are particularly pronounced in regions where populations are growing rapidly and governments already struggle to manage scarce resources. The research does not suggest that climate change automatically causes wars. Instead, it points to a more complicated danger: when climate shocks change the value and availability of land, water and food, societies can face new competition — and weak institutions may struggle to keep those disputes peaceful. Severe droughts and extreme weather are already reducing agricultural output in several parts of the world. A developing El Niño event could add to the pressure by worsening drought and food shortages in vulnerable regions.At the same time, conflicts and geopolitical tensions are making food production more expensive. The war in Ukraine has repeatedly affected international grain markets, while disruptions around the Strait of Hormuz have contributed to higher fuel and fertiliser costs. For farmers, those increases can translate into higher production costs and, eventually, more expensive food. According to the research discussed by DW, almost half of the world's population could live within the next 25 years in regions where agricultural productivity is declining.That prospect has implications far beyond farming.When food becomes harder to produce or afford, households can face difficult choices over land and water. In countries already affected by poverty, political instability or conflict, such pressure can contribute to migration, social unrest and recruitment by armed groups.Researchers have developed the Climate-Driven Agricultural Decline Index (CADI) to examine how climate change could alter agricultural productivity across different parts of the world.Hannes Mueller, a researcher at the Institute for Economic Analysis and Barcelona School of Economics, told DW that some of the most severe agricultural losses are expected in tropical regions.The effects are already visible in a number of countries.Mueller pointed to places including Australia, Argentina, Moldova, Nigeria, Romania, the United States and Sudan as examples where agricultural losses are being felt. He also singled out North Africa as a region requiring particular attention because of the scale of projected declines.The broader picture is not simply one of countries becoming poorer as temperatures rise.Some areas could actually become more productive.And that creates another, less obvious risk.One of the study's more surprising findings is that agricultural gains can also create conditions for conflict.As temperatures and rainfall patterns change, land that was previously difficult to farm may become more productive. That can increase its economic value, attracting investors and creating competition over ownership.In other words, scarcity is not always necessary for conflict — sudden changes in the value of resources can be enough.Mueller told DW that even the expectation of future agricultural gains could encourage people or companies to try to secure land before those changes occur.The issue is already emerging in parts of Europe, where changing conditions are opening up new possibilities for vineyards. Major sparkling-wine producers have begun purchasing land in mountainous areas where agricultural conditions could become more suitable in the future.For local communities, that can mean rising land prices, displacement and disputes over who controls resources that may not even be highly productive yet.Sudan offers another example of how climate-driven agricultural change can produce mixed outcomes.Some parts of the country could become more productive as climatic conditions change, while other areas may experience losses. That can create new economic winners and losers within the same country.In a fragile political environment, such divisions can become particularly dangerous.The key concern is therefore not simply whether a country's total food production rises or falls. What matters is who gains, who loses and who controls the land and resources that become more valuable.The research also points to the role of political institutions.According to Mueller, agricultural changes are more likely to contribute to violence in non-democratic countries, where there may be fewer mechanisms for competing groups to negotiate.Democratic systems can be slow and frustrating, but their institutions provide channels through which disputes over resources can be addressed without violence, he told DW.Courts, local governments and other institutions can help communities negotiate changes in land ownership, employment and access to water.Where such mechanisms are weak, disagreements can escalate much more quickly.South Asia stands out as one of the regions facing particularly serious long-term risks.Abdullah Fahimi of the German Council on Foreign Relations told DW that the combination of climate vulnerability and rapid population growth makes South Asia and the Sahel regions that deserve close attention.South Asia is home to around 2 billion people and depends both on its own agricultural systems and international food markets.The region imports commodities including wheat, maize and palm oil, while its domestic farming systems face growing threats from heatwaves, flooding, declining land productivity and saltwater intrusion.That creates a double vulnerability: food production at home is under pressure while international supplies and prices can be affected by conflicts and climate disasters elsewhere.The long-term water outlook adds another layer of concern.Fahimi pointed to the Himalayan and Hindu Kush mountain ranges, which provide water for agriculture and drinking across large parts of South Asia.Climate change is accelerating the melting of glaciers and snow. Initially, increased meltwater could provide additional supplies. But as ice reserves diminish, the region could eventually face severe water shortages.Fahimi warned that the consequences could amount to a major humanitarian crisis affecting around 2 billion people later this century.The devastating floods in Nepal in August 2026 also illustrate the region's growing exposure to extreme weather, even as longer-term water scarcity becomes a concern.The consequences of food and water shortages do not stop at agriculture.When traditional livelihoods become impossible, people may be forced to move in search of work, food or safer living conditions. In fragile areas, displaced or economically vulnerable populations can also become targets for recruitment by armed or extremist groups.Fahimi cited examples from Nigeria and Afghanistan, where resource pressures and climate-related disruption can intersect with existing political and security problems.Governments face another risk: public anger.If authorities are unable to protect livelihoods or keep food affordable, citizens may begin to question their legitimacy. What starts as an agricultural or economic crisis can therefore become a political one.The research suggests that simply developing drought-resistant crops or introducing new agricultural technologies will not be enough.Societies will also need to manage the social consequences of changing agricultural geography.Who owns newly valuable farmland? Who receives access to water? What happens to communities when agricultural companies move in? And how will governments respond when climate change creates new winners and losers?These questions could become as important as the technology used to adapt farms to warmer conditions.Climate change, war and trade disruption do not inevitably produce conflict. But they can increase pressure on societies that are already vulnerable.The difference, researchers argue, may ultimately come down to institutions.Where governments, courts and local authorities can provide credible ways to negotiate disputes over land, water, food and employment, communities may be able to absorb severe shocks. Where those institutions fail, a climate-driven food crisis could become something much more dangerous — a threat to social stability and peace itself.