Environmental Solutions to Environmental Conflicts in the DRC

A child is put to work at a militia-run mine in Watsa.

The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) in South Central Africa has a very long history of conflict. Although the DRC escaped its Belguim colonial government when it gained independence in 1960, the country has since suffered from a great deal of internal conflict. A series of conflicts sparked in the 1990’s, and tensions are only now beginning to dissipate. In accordance with many of the class readings, environmental factors play a great role in the reoccurrence and severity of these violent conflicts and thereby, must play a role in peacekeeping efforts. Furthermore, environmental condition is sensitively entangled with economic conditions, which are clearly also independently related to conflict outbreaks. Recent large-scale sustainable energy project proposals offer a potential start to mitigating climate change, decreasing conflict, and sustainably developing the Democratic Republic of Congo.

The DRC is plagued with a variety of violent rebel groups that create a confusing web of conflict, most notably including ethnic tensions from both within the DRC as well as from fleeing rebels after the Rwandan genocide. However, one unifying certainty is the rebel groups’ unanimous interest in the DRC’s impressive resource wealth. Rebel groups control mines and feed raw materials into the world’s biggest electronics and jewelry companies. Tragically, the profits only finance chaos and do nothing for the poverty stricken communities. Although the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) implemented a Conflict Minerals Rule in the past few years in an attempt to stop the funding of rebel groups, this has proven to be difficult mostly due to the massive number of corrupt and small-scale illegal ‘informal’ mines. Congolese communities are intensely dependent upon the mining activities as a means of subsistence. However, Lahiri-Dutt points out that the only ‘lawful’ official impact of ‘legitimate’ mines for the local communities is large-scale displacement without compensation. (Lahiri-Dutt 19) 

The Rubaya camp in North Kivu Province is home to 50,000 people uprooted by fighting between the government and M23, a Rwanda-backed rebel group.

Climate change intensifies conflict through a variety of chain reactions. In Climate change, rainfall, and social conflict in Africa, Hendrix and Salehyan cite the IPCC climate scenarios consensuses that northern and southern Africa will become significantly dryer, while eastern Africa will be significantly wetter. (46) The DRC’s southern location makes it prone to resource scarcity conflict issues during the impending droughts. This will place pressure on the agriculture economy, and their low adaptive capacity will only pronounce those impacts, including different levels of political conflict. (Hendrix 46) IPCC climate projections expect increased rainfall in eastern Africa, causing runoffs, flooding and will likely devastate the already minimal infrastructure (i.e. roads). More importantly, Hendrix and Salehyan’s main findings conclude that extreme, increased rainfall events have the strongest relationship with violent conflict events. The eastern part of the DRC has already been afflicted with violent rebel activity around a concentration of mineral resources. The recent decrease in tensions (since the disintegration of the M23 rebels) is still far too vulnerable in the east and cannot afford any additional stressors.

A boy waits his turn for spoonfuls of rice and beans in Pluto. In some areas of eastern Congo up to 40 percent of gold miners are children, often forcibly recruited by militias.

The DRC’s specific resource curse condition is extremely multifaceted and will need many varying solutions in varying disciplines. However, the recent sustainable energy investment projects in Southern Africa offers the potential to make substantial long-term improvements towards true political and social stability. The World Bank’s approval of these projects will expand electricity access to the 83% of the population currently without electricity. This is critical for poverty reduction efforts by attracting investments, expanding exports and creating jobs. This will diversify the export industry past conflict minerals and offer communities truly conflict-free job opportunities. The World Bank’s press release also states that it “will provide support for brokering and finalizing cross-border, technical and commercial agreements in order to attract sufficient private sector financing.” This has the potential of resolving the Rwandan-DRC border concerns by collaboratively addressing rebel activity.

One of the projects is the Inga 3 BC Hydropower Development project in the DRC. The DRC is estimated to have the third largest hydropower potential after China and Russia. The project will strengthen the DRC’s institutional capability, expand growth, and offer one of the most affordable sources of energy in Africa. The electricity generation potential is projected to provide a surplus that will be sold to “credit-worthy business and other regional users”. Inga 3 BC has a smaller footprint compared to hydropower projects of the same capacity, thereby coinciding with the DRC’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emission contributions to climate change. The investments in more environmentally sustainable energy projects will decrease biomass deforestation activity and increase food security with alternative agriculture opportunities.

The environment’s role in causing violent conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo must be equally prominent in ending violent conflict. Sustainable energy projects offer alternative means of economic growth, which will alleviate dependence upon lootable resource excavation for subsistence and reduce poverty. The DRC’s resource curse is still multifaceted and multidisciplinary. Luckily, there are multifaceted solutions that are still harmonious between all of the related disciplines.

Works Cited

World Bank Press Release, “DRC: World Bank to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions with improved forest landscape management and innovative investments.”

http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2014/06/24/drc-world-bank-to-help-reduce-greenhouse-gas-emissions-with-improved-forest-landscape-management-and-innovative-investments

World Bank Press Release, “World Bank Program to Help Increase Investment in Large-scale Sustainable Energy Projects in Southern Africa.”

http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2014/11/11/2014193afr

World Bank Press Release, “World Bank Group Supports DRC with Technical Assistance for Preparation of Inga 3 BC Hydropower Development.”

http://www.worldbank.org/projects/P131027/inga-3-development-ta?lang=en

All photographs by Marcus Bleasdale with National Geographic

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/10/conflict-minerals/bleasdale-photography

Resource Scarcity: National Security Issue or World Issue?

Alec Stewart

GVPT 306

11/11/14

Resource Scarcity: National Security Issue or World Issue?

Throughout class we have debated whether resource scarcity is a national security issue, with most people siding with the resource scarcity and environmental degradation being matters of national security. However, I posit that by making environmental degradation a national security issue stagnation occurs regarding the world’s ability to find suitable ways to deal with the issue. According to the vast majority of the scientific world, the Earth needs 2.5 Earths to sustain itself at the current rate. This is an alarming statistic, so why is nothing major being done?

            By making environmental degradation and resource scarcity a national security issue, the ability for international cooperation is lost. This is evident in the many failed international treaties that aim to curb environmental degradation like the Kyoto Proposal. Countries are worried that if they are the first one to bite the bullet, and cut emissions for example, they will be at a competitive disadvantage with the rest of the world, compromising their national security, and for good reason. As it stands now, the economic power and the national security of a state go hand in hand, so for a country to give up some substantial amount of economic prosperity in the name of environmental protection is unheard of because this would also jeopardize the security of the state as a whole. Until the problem of environmental degradation is seen as a problem the world has to conquer together, with unilateral cooperation, the problem will not be solved because countries simply do not trust one another enough to cut back on their use of environmental resources/GHG’s.

Now, someone might say that through a good regime design like one created through the Montreal Protocol the problem of environmental degradation can be stopped on an international scale. However, environmental degradation is a much vaster problem than just one GHG, like CFC’s for example. Because of this, a much larger international effort must be embarked upon, one that demands full cooperation between the entire world. I think it is unrealistic for a regime to be designed in this way because countries would have to be willing to give up substantial amounts of power for such a regime to be created which would in turn compromise state security.

Countries (esp. developed), and by extension the citizens of these countries, simply value the national security of their state and the status quo of economic prosperity (which inevitably involves the continued degradation of the environment) much more than they value curbing climate change or conserving resources. The average person lives in the now, not the future, and for most people the disastrous repercussions of environmental degradation are far in the future, whether this is true or not. I don’t think any broad sweeping international policies aimed at stopping environmental degradation will occur until the citizens of the world see environmental degradation as a problem we have to solve together, and as a problem we have to solve now.

Scarcity and Conflict Don't Mix

I disagree with the theory that resource scarcity causes conflict. More specifically, I agree with the critiques against Homer-Dixon, precisely his selection in cases. His case selection is very exclusive and deals primarily with countries that dealt with conflict. Due to this fact, I found it interesting to find three distinct countries who have scarcities, but however no conflicts.

A major natural resource that is sufficient to all life is water. As much as water is a natural resource it is not a renewable resource. Thus, exploitation of water or limited water as a resource can lead to a country experiencing stress.  Three countries that face water stress are Barbados, Singapore, and Qatar. These countries have shown high levels of baseline water stress, which leads to farmers, domestic and industrial users becoming more vulnerable to scarcity.

Even with this scarcity, these countries have yet to experience real turmoil. Barbados, located near South American and majority of African decent has not had any conflicts (that I could at least find). There were no localized problems, civil wars, or coup d’états. Singapore located in South East Asia, with a heavy Chinese population and little land mass has not experienced any conflict either; along with Qatar located in Western Asia, which consists of plains and land covered in sand.

More specifically if we look at Singapore it is a highly dense country with no freshwater lakes or aquifers. However, the country has been able to manage its water to keep everything stable. Singapore has invested in technology and international agreements. Creating four major ways that it sustains water: through local catchment, imports, highly purified reclaim, and desalinated. 40% of Singapore’s water comes from an agreement with Malaysia. These management plans have allowed for Singapore to bypass conflicts, along with other countries. If these countries are able to manage water scarcity without any conflicts, then scarcity clearly cannot play too big of a role.

With this being said, I agree that countries that have conflicts are caused by other factors (Thiessen). Some of these other factors would include prestige, politics, revenge, land control, or ethnic issues. For example, corruption, hunger, health concerns, and rebels have been the main cause of issues in African countries. GDP per capita, income, population density, distribution of resources, and institutions as well are all means to cause conflict. Instead of focusing on scarcity as the main source, the variables listed above are potentially bigger factors that cause harm to a country.

A countries government should be able to find a way to mend scarcity like Singapore, Qatar, and Barbados. If a countries government is too unstable to solve this problem, then it seems more than likely that there are other factors within the government that are causing for instability. The instability within a government overall, is likely to cause for localized conflict. Scarcity is just one factor that can potentially harm a country, but if it’s resolved properly then it should not be a major factor. Focusing on the elites who are in charge—if they cannot solve the problem then that’s really where the conflict begins.

A link to graphs/ article which shows water stressed countries 

http://www.wri.org/blog/2013/12/world’s-36-most-water-stressed-countries

The Relationship between Environmental Conflict and Socioeconomic Status

One of the most prevalent legal issues today is that of environmental justice. Environmental justice is defined by the U.S. Environmental Justice Act of 2008 as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies.” [1] This means that no race can be discriminated against when it comes to important environmental decisions, such as where to dispose of toxic waste, industrial site placement and other politically-charged environmental dilemmas. Although this law is in place, there has been an incredible amount of data showing the relationship between low-income, minority communities and degraded environmental quality. The issue became so prevalent that Bill Clinton issued executive order 12898 in 1994 demanding that the Environmental Protection Agency addresses racial and minority inequality. However, despite the fact that this executive order was issued twenty years ago, many environmental justice issues remain the same.

In 2005, a study conducted by the EPA revealed that there is a correlation between minority status and exposure to dangerous levels of air pollution and other environmental hazards. Additionally, more EPA research proved that African Americans are 79% more likely than whites to live in areas with poor air quality.[2] Unfortunately, the growing body of research suggests that this is more than a coincidence.  I would like to expand this scenario to encompass developing nations around the world.  Just as environmental issues disproportionately affect minority and low-income communities in the United States, the consequences of environmental degradation will adversely affect poor, disadvantaged populations worldwide.

            A prime example of the exigent nature of global warming is seen in the Maldives. The Maldives is the world’s most low-lying country, a 1000kn-long nation made up of a series of 1,200 islands. Even more interesting, the archipelago is not made up of sand or rock, but of coral reefs. The nation has built itself on top of the world’s most endangered ecosystem, and the effects of human activity are already beginning to become evident. Ocean acidification and rising sea levels are starting to kill the coral reefs. The nation’s main industry is tourism, but it is an industry that is having even more devastating environmental impacts. “The inevitable tension between raising incomes in a relatively poor nation and over-exploiting the natural source of the wealth is creating a paradox in paradise.”[3] Little global action has been taken to support the Maldives; little is even known about the plight of the drowning nation.

            The World Health Organization has acknowledged that environmental degradation will disproportionately affect developing nations. “The resulting impacts [of climate change] are estimated to cause about 25% of death and disease globally, reaching nearly 35% in regions such as sub-Saharan Africa.”[4] The report goes on to attribute much of the imminent environmental issues to a few key sources such as poor water quality, availability, sanitation, vector-borne diseases, poor ambient and indoor air quality, toxic substances and global environmental change. Additionally, the WHO predicts that over “the next 30 years, most of the world’s population growth will occur in the urban areas of poor countries.” The burgeoning population in conjunction with unsustainable urban development will lead to significant environmental quality degradation and health hazards.

            The Environmental Protection Agency has also acknowledged that climate change is threatening the livelihood of several “indigenous groups in various regions – such as Latin and South America, Europe and Africa…”[5] The agency also notes that women in these developing nations are especially vulnerable, as “the ratio o women (to the total population) affected or killed by climate-related disasters is already higher in some developing countries than in developed countries.” The EPA has acknowledged that Africa is “one of the most vulnerable continents to climate variablility” due to existing stressors such as poverty, political conflicts and ecosystem degradation. They predict that “by 2050, between 350 million and 600 million people are projected to experience increased water stress due to climate change”. Sea level rise will adversely affect coastal populations, and vector-borne diseases will become much more prevalent.

            Although many communities in North America and Western Europe have yet to experience the consequences of global warming, it is already poised to negatively impact the developing world. These repercussions will be serious, and will disproportionately affect impoverished communities. Climate change is an injustice to all disadvantaged populations worldwide.

---

[1] Senate, Committee on Environment and Public Works. (2008). Environmental justice act of 2008 (110 S. 642). Retrieved from website: http://congressional.proquest.com/congressional/result/congressional/pqpdocumentview?accountid=14696&groupid=95582&pgId=a3a4e224-3f19-4672-87d9-803f189b892f&rsId=1448FD4A624

[2] 11 facts about environmental racism. DoSomething. Retrieved from https://www.dosomething.org/tipsandtools/11-facts-about-environmental-racism

[3] Carrington, D. (2013, September 26). The Maldives is the extreme test case for climate change action. Retrieved November 11, 2014, from http://www.theguardian.com/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2013/sep/26/maldives-test-case-climate-change-action

[4] Environment and health in developing countries. (n.d.). Retrieved November 11, 2014, from http://www.who.int/heli/risks/ehindevcoun/en/

[5] International Impacts & Adaptation. (2013, September 9). Retrieved November 11, 2014.

Environment and national security: A downward spir

The methods of overcoming environmental threats when posed as a national security issue are aggressive and combative, which counter-intuitively promote global instability, thereby undermining national security.

The Pentagon released a 20-page report last month officially declaring climate change as a national security threat, calling it a “threat multiplier” that has the power to exacerbate many of the challenges the U.S. faces today (Barron-Lopez, 2014). This was concluded on the basis that instability in other regions of the world has been due to a lack of food and water, pandemic diseases, disputes over refugees and resources, and destruction by natural disasters…all brought on by an unstable climate. These indicators of climate change, the article suggests, undermine already fragile governments, and create gaps in governance that can create an “avenue for extremist ideologies” and conditions that foster terrorism. This seams like a bit of a stretch. Climate change = terrorism? The pentagon is correlating the potential harm of increased climate threats with increased military operations. This equation seems a bit suspicious, and upon closer look seems like a tool used by congress to combine the nation’s top issues: the environment and terrorism. Americans can now enthusiastically “rally behind the flag” in the name of “environmental security” to combat climate change, while simultaneously justifying military operations to end the War on Terrorism.  

The fact that the pentagon has framed environmental threats as an issue of national security shows that they are aligned with Klare’s thesis in “Resource Wars”. Like Klare, the Pentagon believes that the future of international conflict will be over dwindling resources brought about by a changing climate. There has been a shift in the way global leaders think about resources as directly influencing economic security, which justifies their use of military force to defend areas of “national concern.” Yet, are military operations the only way to respond to resource scarcity and climate change threats? And, what are the implications of doing so?

The United States allocates an enormous amount of funds to its military, far more than any other country. In 2011, the U.S. spent more on its military than the next thirteen dominant military powers combined; the U.S. spent more money on international and national security than on Medicare (Plumer, 2013). Like the cartoon suggests, this giant military force needs oil to fuel its operations. It does not come as a surprise that the U.S. places such a high priority in securing regions that will provide their fuel. Following this ideology, the U.S. had better make sure it has the support of regions that are resource suppliers before being pulled under the quickly growing wave of environmental scarcity leading to conflict. This system of western nations invading resource-rich regions (even in the name of national security) inherently causes regional instability, forming a negative feedback loop and intensifying instability as resource become scarcer. Perhaps, conjuring Mitchell’s critique of the resource curse, it is actually western influence in these regions that is causing instability and terrorism, and not climate change.

I believe that there is a way to diminish this seemingly impending doom, without having to invade resource-rich reasons and undergo geopolitical resource competition. I do believe that environmental problems in and of themselves are concerns of national security, requiring immediate attention at the highest level. Yet, framing it as a “national security threat” implies a combative, “us vs. them” stance, favoring competition over coordination. The methods used to secure this threat are misguided; national efforts and funds should be directed toward research and development of technology rather than toward defending regions that are resource-rich.

Plumer, B. (2013). America’s staggering defense budget, in charts. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/07/everything-chuck-hagel-needs-to-know-about-the-defense-budget-in-charts/

Barron-Lopez, L. (2014). Pentagon: Climate change a national security threat. The Hill. Retrieved from http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/220575-pentagon-unveils-plan-to-fight-climate-change