Climate change in Yemen: risks, realities and solutions

"Notwithstanding years of global negligence, the conflict in Yemen has made climate change no less of a threat to Yemen than the pandemic and the violence caused by conflict," writes Faisal Alshamiry in this op-ed for commonspace.eu. He discusses the climate situation, the biggest risks, and offers some suggestions for how Yemen can mitigate the effects of climate change that represent just as much an existential threat to the country as the ongoing war.

Discussions of climate change and environmental crises in Yemen are increasing in both local and international contexts. Yemen is known to be among the most arid places in the world and therefore one of the most vulnerable to climate change. In fact, during the past decade, the country has witnessed a higher rate of climate change in terms of water shortages and weather extremes, according to the World Bank. Moreover, low levels of land reclamation and migration out of farmlands are trends that further complicate the environmental challenges facing Yemeni society. To put this challenge into context, only 34% of the total land is agricultural, but the vast majority of this land is pastures, with only 3% being arable. Less than half of the arable land is actually cultivated.

However, Yemen’s geography is not the only reason that makes it especially vulnerable to the worsening rate of climate change. The ongoing conflict in Yemen has also disrupted the natural ecosystem, affecting the climate in two main ways. First, warring parties are not pursuing solutions to food and water scarcity, and because of a dependency on aid they are not encouraging agricultural activities that would put rural families on a path towards economic sustainability. Second, disputes within the conflict in Yemen have become connected to land and water rights, and disputes over these rights often hinder the use of land and water resources for the public good. The lack of action towards the scarcity of resources and the disputes over these resources in turn constitute a heavy burden on ecosystems and puts the country on a course towards worsening climate conditions, arguably because of the people themselves.

Addressing climate change in Yemen is easier said than done

Notwithstanding years of global negligence on the climate, the conflict in Yemen has made climate change no less of a threat to Yemen than the pandemic and the violence caused by conflict. This threat is especially acute for Yemen because the country has always been an agricultural society reliant on the trade of agricultural produce. Under the current circumstances, a Yemeni society that has always been largely agricultural is becoming a consumerist society dependent on humanitarian aid. This is complicated by farmers who are often forced to take a side in the conflict, or join war-related activities, leading to a decline in the quality and quantity of agricultural produce. 

The impact of climate change in Yemen will not be limited to our current era but will extend to successive generations after us. It is, therefore, important to envisage how Yemen can leave a better environmental legacy for future generations. In Yemen, this is, of course, easier said than done. The country faces challenges that are serious and multiple. Due to the conflict and the ensuing fragility, the state is unable to intervene and help address climate change, and most of the current efforts to mitigate the crisis are led by small grassroot initiatives such as "Holm Akhdar", who, despite having succeeded in highlighting the risks and raising awareness, suffer from challenges such as limited funding. Holm Akhdar serves as an independent platform to highlight climate challenges, raise awareness and provide information, and is a culmination of grassroot efforts with little or no support from state institutions.

No solution will be viable without implementing actual remedial policies on the ground and obliging industries and warring parties alike to reduce the rate of greenhouse gases emitted. This can be achieved if the international community, along with local grassroots initiatives such as "Holm Akhdar", can pressure the Yemeni government to enact laws that obligate and consolidate climate action and policies across both the public and the private sectors. Of course, there are many structural challenges at the moment, but the government could at least start by pledging to meet international commitments that reduce the effects of climate change, adopting a philosophy that recognises climate issues in Yemen, and promising to work to mitigate its effects.

Practical climate solutions for post-conflict Yemen

In the post-conflict phase, however, there should be more room for the government and for the private sector to enact practical solutions, particularly in the agricultural sector. Some of these practical steps could include: 

  • Creating green belts around urban areas to protect against the effects of weather extremes, and also to tackle air pollution caused by the ongoing violence. Green belts would be most effective in areas between agricultural highlands and the arid plains, namely in cities such as Al Bayda’, Rada’a and Ataq. 

  • Promoting scientific research of drought-resistant crops and agricultural technologies that would help crops be more tolerant of heat and salinity. One should invest in the research and development of crop varieties and grains that produce a high yield even in Yemen’s climate and that, in turn, can be incorporated into local food supply chains to reduce dependency on foreign aid.

  • Adopting green food production techniques, greenhouses, and promoting organic agricultural production. This would reduce the dependency on imported foods and manufactured materials that negatively affect the environment and public health, thereby decreasing public spending in the long-term.

  • Working on social and economic policies that would revive systems of collective housing and residential complexes so that land can be reclaimed for agriculture.

Yemenis must cultivate a sense of shared responsibility on climate action

Yemen also has an abundance of natural resources that can be utilised. Heavy rainfall in Yemen in recent years, as well as the abundance of solar and wind currents, can help generate clean energy. International donors could play a great role in supporting such endeavours. International support for generating energy from fossil fuels should also be redirected towards renewables. Currently, many households in Yemen use solar panels, but not all families have access to them due to financial or logistical challenges. Large companies should be encouraged to install solar panels on their buildings to reduce the burden on the power grid. Moreover, biogas units from human and animal waste can also be developed as Yemen has an active dairy industry. There have already been some minor efforts to this end, but they fell short due to the ongoing crisis. Biomethane generation can in turn provide domestic gas and reduce methane emissions from livestock. 

It is important to recognise and address climate change in Yemen, and to utilise legal and social frameworks to encourage climate action to the best of our ability given the current circumstances. Awareness of climate and environmental change must be strengthened among citizens to cultivate a sense of shared responsibility. We are the only ones responsible for preserving and protecting the environment, not only for our own sake, but for successive generations after us too.

source: Faisal Ahmed Alshamiry is a PhD candidate at the College of Food & Agriculture Sciences of King Saud University (KSU). He obtained his MSc from KSU and his BSc from the College of Agriculture at Sana’a University in 2004. Alshamiry has several published articles and often writes for Yemeni news websites. His interests are food and water security.
photo: The Century Foundation
The views expressed in opinion pieces and commentaries do not necessarily reflect the position of commonspace.eu or its partners

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).
Editor's choice
News
Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

Ukraine and Russia could see European countries join the next round of peace negotiations, following talks between US special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on Thursday (November 12). However, conflicting positions over European military involvement, Ukraine’s territorial future and the continent’s security arrangements highlight the difficulties facing the diplomatic process. Speaking after the meeting, Witkoff said European participation would be an important development, describing the countries concerned as key partners. Kushner also indicated that Washington had noticed a shift in European attitudes and believed their involvement would not obstruct progress. In a statement published on X, he said the expanded discussions would address broader European security arrangements alongside territorial disputes between Russia and Ukraine. The US envoys subsequently travelled to Dublin, where they met Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during a European summit. Zelenskyy welcomed the possibility of European participation and expressed hope that the negotiations would include measures to reduce tensions and establish ceasefires. He also reiterated the importance of European representation in decisions concerning the continent’s security. Moscow, however, has offered a more cautious interpretation of the proposed expansion. Putin's aide, Yuri Ushakov, suggested that European countries should first reconsider their military assistance to Kyiv, arguing that their current actions demonstrated an unwillingness to pursue peace. Putin similarly called on Washington to work with its European allies to establish whether they genuinely wanted peace or continued confrontation with Russia. The Russian president also rejected the prospect of European peacekeeping troops being deployed to Ukraine following a potential agreement, describing such a presence as a continuation of the war. His position reflects wider disagreements over the future European security architecture, with Moscow seeking discussions on the continent's broader security arrangements, while European leaders insist that such negotiations cannot replace a settlement of the war. Simultaneously, Zelenskyy raised concerns about disruptions to Starshield, the US-made satellite communications service used by Ukrainian forces. He described Washington’s discussions with Moscow about Europe's future security as unusual and warned against decisions that could undermine Ukraine's sovereignty. Despite the diplomatic activity, fighting continued. Russian drone attacks killed two people in Ukraine's Sumy region and injured five in Rivne, while a separate attack in Russia's Belgorod region killed one person and injured four. Ukrainian agricultural company Kernel Holding also suspended operations at all its oilseed extraction facilities following repeated Russian attacks.

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)