Armed conflict in Africa: a threat to regional cooperation

Environmental Law & Policy (main)

Published: April 13, 2007, 3:07 am

Updated: May 7, 2013, 2:48 pm

Author: United Nations Environment Programme

Topic Editor: Cutler J. Cleveland

Topics:

Environmental Law & Policy (main)

Environmental Humanities (main)

Introduction

Up in smoke: over 3,800 weapons were destroyed in Nairobi on 29 June 2005, in an effort of Norwegian Church Aid (NCA) and partners to bring lasting peace to the GLR and the Horn of Africa. The NCA is committed to the destruction of small arms and light weapons, a major cause of human insecurity and crime. (Source: I. Kipyegon/NCAEA) Political and governance systems, investment and economic growth, and environmental conservation and stewardship in Africa are all at risk due to wars and other civil conflicts. War, and post-conflict situations, places stress on the environment, sometimes contributing to the overexploitation of natural resources. Environmental resources have been acknowledged as a factor in influencing or prolonging some conflicts in Africa. Despite being one of the richest regions, in terms of both human and natural resources, extreme poverty and hunger abound in the region. Armed conflict has – along with large populations of displaced people and refugees and the HIV/AIDS pandemic – been identified as a major factor in slowing down the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) (Armed conflict in Africa: a threat to regional cooperation) . The resources spent on warfare could, if redirected, make a significant contribution to addressing the MDGs and other development targets. For example, sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) has the lowest access globally to improved drinking water supply, with only 58 percent of the population having such access in 2000.

Often, food production is drastically affected by armed conflict. According to some studies, areas affected by conflict suffer annual losses of more than 12 percent of production, although the figure varies widely from country to country. In the extreme case of Angola, for example, production was reduced by 44.5 percent, and less than 4 percent of arable land was under commercial or subsistence production in 2000.

Box 1: Access to land and violent conflict in AFrica
(Source: Gasana 2002, Huggins 2004, Juma and Ojwang 1996, Katerere and Hill 2002, Mohamed-Katerere and van der Zaag 2003, Moyo 2003)

The root causes of conflict in Africa have been the subject of much debate. Unfortunately, the nature of violence has been poorly understood. In contrast to the stereotypes of “ethnic” conflict in Africa, evidence appears to show that Africa’s great ethnic diversity actually reduces, rather than increases, the chances of conflict occurring. However, in some cases it seems that where one ethnic group is numerically dominant (eg if the majority forms more than 45 percent of the total population) this may increase the chances of conflict. Even in these cases power, and the manipulation of ethnic identity by elites, is a major driving force.

The sources of conflict in Africa reflect the diversity and complexity of Africa’s past and present. Some sources are purely internal, some reflect the dynamics of a particular sub-region, and some have important international dimensions. Despite these differences the sources of conflict in Africa are linked by a number of common themes and experiences. According to the Commission on Human Security (2003), causes of internal conflict include:

Competition over land and resources (see Box 1);
Sudden and deep political or economic transitions;
Large pockets of poverty, food shortages and disease;
Increasing crime, corruption and illegal activities;
Weak and unstable political regimes and institutions; and
Identity politics and historical legacies, such as tribal rivalries.

In several places, economic motivations have been a critical factor:

The international arms trade is very high on the list of those who profit from conflict in Africa, and the protagonists themselves.
In Liberia, the control and exploitation of diamonds, timber and other raw materials was one of the principal objectives of the warring factions. Control over those resources financed the various factions and gave them the means to sustain the conflict.
In Angola, difficulties in the peace process owed much to the importance of control over the exploitation of the country’s lucrative diamond fields.
In Sierra Leone, the chance to plunder natural resources and loot Central Bank reserves was a key motivation of those who seized power from the elected Government in May 1997.

Evolution of armed conflicts in Africa

In many ways, the conflicts now being experienced in many parts of Africa are influenced by problems rooted in the past. The militarization of societies and the social tensions which these create often linger long after violence subsides, having long-term affects on opportunities for development and improving human well-being.

Box 2: Darfu - a region in crisis
(Source: Gasana 2002, Huggins 2004, UNEP and OCHA Environment Unit 2004)

During the 1960s and 1970s, many countries achieved political independence from direct colonial control. However in several countries, particularly in Southern Africa, western countries continued to play a pivotal role. In several countries, the anti-colonial struggles which endured for many years had a very destructive impact on social and political life, as well as environmental resources. Indeed, current tensions in several African countries cannot be fully understood without reference to these early struggles.

In Angola, for example, three different groups fought for independence since the 1950s and 1960s. With the ousting of the Portuguese president in 1974, the new military government in Portugal declared a truce with those fighting for independence, and entered into talks. However, conflict between the rebel groups continued, and some residents of oil-rich areas expressed a desire to secede. While the Movimento Popular da Libertação de Angola (MPLA) took over government, two other armed groups, the União Nacional para a Independência Total de Angola (UNITA) and the Front for the Liberation of Angola (FNLA) continued to oppose the MPLA, and intermittent but extremely destructive conflict continued right up to the beginning of the 21st century.

The 1980s were the height of the Cold War, and this had an undeniably strong influence on events across Africa. During the 1990s conflict in Angola was increasingly determined by struggles for diamonds, oil and other resources. This is part of a wider trend in Africa and elsewhere, in which the struggle for access and control of high value natural resources has resulted in, or perpetuated, conflicts. With the end of the Cold War and the loss of external funding from superpower rivalries control over these resources have become much more important to insurgents. Arvind and Vines (2004), for example, found that UNITA financed its war largely through taxes on the illicit trade in diamonds, particularly between the mid-1990s and 2002. From 1999-2002, UNITA is reported to have earned about US$300 million per year from illicit diamond sales. In Sierra Leone, the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) financed its war by trading in illicit diamonds. In the DRC, struggles over the control of diamonds, coltan and timber has prolonged civil war.

One pat of the Africa region which has received global attention due to conflict is the Darfur region of Sudan where 1.6 million people were internally displaced in the 2002-03 period and 200,000 others forced to flee as refugees into neighbouring Chad. This ongoing conflict has strong links to environmental and natural resource issues, as is highlighted in Box 2.

Defining problems and finding solutions

Box 3: Land, water and conflict in the Senegal River basin
(Source: Homer-Dixon 1994, ACTS, CISDL and UNDP 2003)

Over the past decade, significant international attention has been devoted to conducting research into the links between environmental factors and conflict. To some extent, there has been a mismatch between “northern” emphases and “southern” perspectives on the environment and security debate. Much of the early work in this field originated in northern universities or think tanks and in addressing developing world issues, focused on those aspects which were likely to affect the north – such as the possibility of large-scale movements of environmental refugees, for example. Much attention was also paid to demographic issues related to high population growth rates. Many in the developing world felt that such issues did not represent their key concerns, and that the “environmental security” concept was “a rich country agenda serving rich-country interests of access and control”. More recently, and partly due to conscious efforts to bridge the gap between northern and southern debates, more consensus is emerging around some of the root causes of conflict and the links between the environment, peace and security; however, more remains to be done.

In particular, an influential strand of research has built upon analysis of “war economies,” originally developed from within the humanitarian literature, and has focused on “conflict resources”. This research conceptualizes natural resources as valuable commodities, used to fund armed groups and, therefore crucial in perpetuating conflict. Nevertheless, it recognizes that conflict can be motivated by other factors, including ideological differences, but concludes that often, maintaining access to valuable natural resources can become an end in itself, rather than the means to an end. Members and clients of armed groups at all levels – but particularly at leadership levels – stand to benefit economically from the control of resources.

The plethora of research into natural resource conflict provides a useful lens through which to view conflicts across Africa. However the analysis, often based around detailed case studies, has not always succeeded in providing effective recommendations for moving forward, resolving conflict, and enhancing postconflict development. For example, awareness that natural resources have fuelled conflict has often resulted in calls for embargoes on particular goods originating in conflict zones.

Unfortunately, there is sometimes insufficient recognition that trade in these resources is essential to local livelihoods, and embargoes on some resources may further undermine local people’s abilities to survive. In the words of one commentator, “the shadow economy has revitalized old markets and created new ones through demands for local goods and all types of services… the transborder networks that support organized violence in one location have encouraged autonomous and resistant processes of actually existing development in other areas”.

The available environmental resources in Breidjing refugee camp in eastern Chad have been under tremendous strain from overcrowding (2004).
(Source: J. Clark/UNHCR)

In addition, there is often a simplistic line drawn between “conflict resources” – which are seen as illegitimate – and resource extraction in a post-conflict scenario, which is assumed to be legitimate. There is often an emphasis on “illegal” resource exploitation, which is identified as the problem. In fact, resource extraction in some countries was unsustainable and exploitative prior to the conflict; and a return to the status quo will simply result in continued marginalization of the poor. As noted by participants at a conference on transforming war economies: “These economic relationships tend to persist after the formal resolution of active hostilities. In these settings, a main challenge for peacebuilding efforts is to address the dysfunctional elements of the shadow economy, while retaining its socially beneficial aspects”.

The issue is not to “legalize” trade. Instead, there is a need for an overhaul of the systems and standards in place. A useful strategy, in areas which continue to be characterized by lack of respect for the rule of law, may be to use a combination of disincentives against the use of violence and incentives for good business practices. This approach may include punitive measures and controls on financial transactions, as well as creating avenues for integration into legal systems for those who accept reform, reject violence and are willing to become more accountable. This pragmatic approach could make some companies and networks more accountable and less violent, while avoiding marginalizing them completely and hence risking a return to conflict.

In recent years, there has been a realization that there is a need to go beyond the “resource war” concept and focus on the potentially positive aspects of the environment. It has been noted that when parties are involved in bitter violent conflict over values and visions, environmental issues can be less divisive than other issues, and can provide practical means for cooperation and local development. Environmental issues may, therefore, represent a platform for dialogue between warring parties and an opportunity for practical cooperation. At the same time, because of the great importance of natural resources at both the local and national levels, environmental issues are the stuff of “high politics”.

Consequently, more attention has been paid to cooperation over potentially contested resource claims – whether at local, national or sub-regional levels. There has been recognition that, in general, there have been few real efforts to identify the specific pathways through which competition over resources can be transformed into cooperation and synergy. Often, competing claims over resources are seen as “zero-sum” struggles where only one actor may win, and all others must logically lose. This is the idea of “resource capture” in which each actor endeavours to take as big a slice of the environmental “pie” as possible. However, through reconceptualizing the nature of the resource and acknowledging the multiple uses to which it could be put, as well as the relationships between the various actors, the “zero-sum” outcome can potentially be transformed into a “plus-sum” outcome, with enhanced stakeholder confidence and regional security as a major “value-added”. The diversity of cooperation models which are possible could enhance regional stability and result not in a “negative peace”, characterized by the absence of war but the also the absence of trust, but a “positive peace” which opens new doors for collaborative approaches.

Another focus has been on conflicts arising in situations of abundance. Despite the great economic value of environmental resources, revenue derived from its use is not always directed towards the public good. Many countries which are rich in oil and minerals, for example, have not managed to develop equitably. This is often dubbed a “resource curse”. This is closely related to economic booms. Booms may be caused either through price increases or new discoveries of natural resources. Export booms cause major distortions in economies through their effect on structure of production and investment, domestic income, savings, government expenditure and prices in different sectors of the economy. Export booms increasing foreign exchange in the sector concerned (and not others), which may lead to an appreciation in the real exchange rate. In turn, this reduces the relative prices of tradable manufactured products to non-tradable goods and services.

One study found that countries with a high dependency on oil and mineral exports tend to have high mortality rates for children under five. Although local communities often do not see the benefits of these economic activities, they frequently bear the brunt of the negative environmental and social impacts of natural resource extraction. These may include land expropriation, pollution and immigration of labour from other parts of the country. Changes to the local economy may be associated with increased social breakdown manifested in increases in prostitution, and drug and alcohol abuse, effectively undermining human well-being and entrenching social exclusion. In Nigeria, annual oil revenues are around US$40,000 million. Despite this, the per capita income is only about US$290 per year. In oil-producing areas, both environmental and human well-being are directly impacted upon. Oil spills, among other things reduce fish catches undercutting nutrition and income-earning opportunities. The flaring of gas during the extraction process, occurs with a far greater frequency in Nigeria than is generally permitted in other countries, and is a major air pollutant. Such impacts, as well as the uneven distribution of benefits, associated with inter-communal rivalry around territorial claims to oil-producing areas, such as access to employment with oil firms, have contributed to the rise of violence. Countries with high levels of inequity tend to be prone to social conflict. In Nigeria, the richest fifth of the population earns 55.7 percent of income while the poorest fifth earns just 4.4 percent and 70 percent of Nigerians live on less than US$1 a day.

These patterns of conflict and inequitable development are not inevitable, and can be avoided through astute economic management. Botswana, for example, has adopted socially responsible reinvestment systems, reinvesting most of its mineral revenues in accordance with criteria explicitly aimed at sustainability and the development of physical and human capital, guided by a series of six-year National Development Plans (NDPs) and, more recently the objectives of Vision 2016. As a result, the country has accumulated a substantial portfolio of international financial assets, valued at $6,300 million, or approximately 130 percent of GDP, at the end of 2000. This ability to transform one form of wealth – non-renewable minerals – into other forms of productive wealth is the key to successful economic development of resource-rich economies.

Armed conflict in Africa: a threat to regional cooperation

Contents

Introduction

Evolution of armed conflicts in Africa

Defining problems and finding solutions

Further reading

Citation

Navigation menu

Personal tools

Namespaces

Variants

Views

More

Search

Navigation

Community

Utility

Tools