Although water is an essential input for agriculture and industrial production, it is also scarce in many regions. When it crosses international borders via shared rivers, lakes and aquifers, it can become a source of conflict and contention. Yet while water can be a source of instability, especially in the face of climate change, it can also be a source or catalyst for cooperation and even peace.

In September, Ambassador David Balton, a Senior Fellow at the Wilson Center’s Polar Initiative, testified before the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, testifying against illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing (IUU fishing). “We don’t even know just how much illegal fishing is going on,” said Ambassador David Balton, a Senior Fellow at the Wilson Center’s Polar Institute, in a recent Wilson Center NOW interview. IUU fishing is a major threat to the global fisheries industry as well as the oceans. “Even when nations get together and establish rules for fisheries or stocks across jurisdictional lines, it’s difficult to enforce the rules against everyone, and there is unfortunately a high percentage of illegal fishing that takes place.”

“What we do during this decade can be critical for the future of Amazonia,” said São Paulo Research Foundation member, Paulo Artaxo, at a recent Wilson Center event on efforts to support sustainability and development in the Amazon region. The recently accelerating environmental change in the Amazon region warrants greater collaboration between the civil and scientific communities on community and international scales, according to a panel of experts.

The challenge of peacebuilding missions is not only to stop violence and prevent a rekindling of conflict, but also to help societies and governments reset their internal relations on a peaceful path towards sustaining peace.

The security implications of climate change emerged as an important area of concern in the mid 2000s in both policy circles and academia. Since then, there has been much research exploring causal pathways between climate phenomena and violent conflict, often with inconclusive or mixed results.

“Historically, resource conflicts have often centered on fuel minerals, like oil. Future resources conflicts may however focus more on competition for non-fuel minerals that enable [modern] technologies,” said Andrew Gulley, Mineral Economist at the United States Geological Survey. America’s 2018 National Defense Strategy says that great power competition is the country’s most important defense challenge. Its key competitor for resources is China. Gulley was among several experts gathered at New America on September 20 to discuss the new competitive space and prospects for conflict or cooperation.

Great power competition in Asia is not only about control of critical waterways in the South China Sea, but also about who controls Asia’s fresh water. The future of Asia’s water—upon which about four billion people depend—lies in China’s hands. Through its presence in Tibet, China controls the headwaters of ten of the eleven major rivers of Asia. So far, China has taken a relatively cooperative approach to sharing water with its neighbors as part of the systematic consolidation of its “soft power” over downstream countries. But climate change and rapid growth are threatening to upset this delicate diplomatic balance. What happens when China’s own thirst outpaces its resources? And how will China’s choices affect U.S. interests in the strategic Asia-Pacific region?

Solar farms—just like regular farms—cover large swaths of land, requiring between 3.5 to 16.5 acres per MW of generating capacity. The largest solar plant in the world, the 648 MW Kamuthi facility in Tamil Nadu, India, covers ten square kilometers. But it will be dwarfed by the 3,450 MW facility under construction on China’s Tibetan Plateau, which will span 298 square kilometers when completed. Building these large plants requires fundamentally changing how the land they sit on is used, which—without careful planning—could have negative impacts on the environment and local communities that could potentially lead to conflict. The backlash could not only derail solar projects, but could also fuel resistance to future renewable energy development.