Problems in Environmental Protection Work Related to Armed Conflicts

Armed conflicts can cause direct as well as indirect harm to the environment in different ways.7 In the DRC, the warfare has severely affected five natural World Heritage Sites and threatened, among other species, the endangered mountain gorillas.8 Armed groups have used the inaccessibility of the Sites for their military

4 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (World Heritage Convention), 1037 UNTS 151; 27 UST 37; 11 ILM 1358, 16 November 1972.

5 The First Congo War lasted between 1996– 1998 and involved Rwanda, Uganda, and Angola. The sec-ond Congo War lasted between 1998– 2000 and involved DRC, Rwanda, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Burundi, Angola, Namibia, Chad, Eritrea, and Sudan to varying degrees. A peace agreement was signed between warring parties in April 2002. The fighting has however continued with such intensity and organization among the concerned armed groups, including the DRC Army, that it should be classified as a conflict of non- international character (although it still may have some international elements). The lines are however blurring. See also United Nations Office for the Cordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), Democratic Republic of the Congo Mapping Exercise (2010) 8– 10, documenting the most serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law 1993– 2003, at <http:// www.ohchr.org/ Documents/ Countries/

CD/ DRC_ MAPPING_ REPORT_ FINAL_ EN.pdf> accessed 14 June 2017.

6 The DRC ratified the World Heritage Convention on 23 September 1974. See <http:// whc.unesco.org/

en/ statesparties>, accessed 14 June 2017. The DRC has now five natural World Heritage Sites protected under the World Heritage Convention including the Virunga National Park, Salonga National Park, Okapi Wildlife Reserve, Kahuzi- Biega National Park, and Garamba National Park.

7 See for instance Aaron Schwabach, ‘Environmental Damage Resulting from the NATO Military Action Against Yugoslavia’ (2000) 25 Columbia Journal of Environmental Law 117, 121; John Alan Cohan, ‘Modes of Warfare and Evolving Standards of Environmental Protection under the International Law of War’ (2003) 15 Florida Journal of International Law 481, 532.

8 The mountain gorilla has been included since 1975 on Appendix I  of the 1973 Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species (adopted 3 March 1973, entered into force 1 July 1975), 993 UNTS 243 (CITES). Appendix I lists species that are the most endangered among CITES- listed animals

operations, as hiding places, and to set up base camps for planning and launching attacks.9 The armed groups have also entered World Heritage Sites for the purpose of exploiting natural resources by engaging in artisanal mining, charcoal produc-tion, and wildlife poaching. The revenues sustain their military operations and pro-vide personal profit.10 To deny rebel groups their cover, the Congolese Army has entered the World Heritage Sites where it has jeopardized the integrity of the Sites by, for example, cutting down trees and placing army camps inside the Sites.11 In addition, poor discipline, irregular pay, and lack of food have resulted in the grow-ing participation of the Congolese Army in such illegal activities. Several army members have collaborated with rebel groups in the illegal charcoal trade. The army uses their official positions to facilitate exploitation of the dealers bypassing any official controls.12 Such practice establishes a parallel administration system.

This is one example of how the exploitation of natural resources and wildlife can continue without being addressed by the authorities, which is common in post- conflict. The existing governmental structures are often disrupted followed by an ‘institutional vacuum’ and lack of governance, which particularly affects the environmental work in the transition from conflict to peace.13 Moreover, due to the lack of investment in the infrastructure in war- torn societies, these problems can continue and accelerate well into the post- conflict period.14 Poor infrastruc-ture affects a state’s ability to handle waste, sewage, or provide sanitation, water, and fuel. This is particularly noticeable when dealing with large numbers of dis-placed persons generated by armed conflicts. Pollution, like water contamination or deforestation, is often caused by the large concentrations of displaced per-sons living without sanitary facilities, access to fuel, or waste removal services.15

and plants (see Art. 2(1) of the Convention). See CITES website <http:// www.cites.org/ eng/ app/ appendices.

php>, accessed 14 June 2017.

9 See UNESCO World Heritage Committee, Report, distributed 8 February 2002, Doc. WHC- 01/

CONF.208/ 24, 17. For example, between 2008 and 2009, armed rebel groups occupied the gorilla sector in the Virunga National Park. See also UNESCO World Heritage Committee, State of Conservation of the Properties Inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, distributed 11 May 2009, Doc. WHC- 09/

33.COM/ 7A, 12.

10 See UNESCO World Heritage Committee, State of Conservation of the Properties Inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, distributed 26 May 2006, Doc. WHC- 06/ 30.COM/ 7A, 27; State of Conservation of the Properties Inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, distributed 10 May 2007, Doc. WHC- 07/ 31.COM/ 7A, 9; State of Conservation of the Properties Inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, distributed 22 May 2008, Doc. WHC- 08/ 32.COM/ 7A, 8. See also Alec Crawford and Johannah Bernstein, MEAs, Conservation and Conflict— A Case Study of Virunga National Park, DRC (Winnipeg: International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2008), 17– 18.

11 In 2006 it was reported that four brigades totalling 12,000 soldiers, were deployed inside or close to one of the World Heritage Sites, some of them with their families. See UNESCO World Heritage Committee, State of Conservation of the Properties Inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, distributed 26 May 2006, Doc. WHC- 06/ 30.COM/ 7A, 27; State of Conservation of the Properties Inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger distributed 22 May 2008, Doc. WHC- 08/ 32.COM/ 7A, 10. See also Joseph Kalpers, Overview of the Armed Conflict and Biodiversity in Sub- Saharan Africa: Impact, Mechanisms and Responses Washington DC Biodiversity Support Program, 2001), 13.

12 United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), From Conflict to Peacebuilding: The Role of Natural Resources and the Environment (Switzerland: UNEP, 2009), 17.

13 ibid. 14 ibid.

15 Judy Oglete, James Shambaugh, and Rebecca Kormos, ‘Parks in the Crossfire: Strategies for Effective Conservation in Areas of Armed Conflict’ (2004) 14 War and Protected Areas, International Journal for Protected Areas Managers, 3, at <https:// cmsdata.iucn.org/ downloads/ 14_ 1.pdf> accessed 14 June 2017.

For example, after the Rwandan genocide in 1994, approximately 720,000 displaced persons were permitted by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (‘UNCHR’) to settle in and around Virunga National Park, one of the Congolese World Heritage Sites.16 The UNCHR allowed the displaced population to cut fire-wood inside the site due to the lack of fuel. This led to deforestation of an area of 300 km2 that imperilled the unique ecosystem and threatened the mountain gorillas.17

Armed conflict also generates practical challenges to addressing post- conflict environmental damage. One of the main challenges in undertaking environmen-tal work in post- conflict situations is the absence of human and technical capac-ity. Foreign and national staff with higher education is often evacuated first during armed conflict. As there is a shortage of competent staff, operative facilities, intact premises, and financial means as a result of an armed conflict, much of the envi-ronmental protection work halts. Furthermore, in the aftermath of an armed con-flict, most stakeholders involved in rehabilitation and restoration are mainly focused on humanitarian assistance and democracy issues, while the environment is a low priority.18 Nevertheless, in war- torn societies, managing natural resources has been highlighted as an important aspect to meet basic needs of the population, such as pro-viding water, food, shelter, and livelihoods, to reconstruct the financial system, and to re- build governmental structure.19 Environmental degradation has the potential to endanger health, livelihoods, and security of the population.20 The states that are unable to give their population the support they require may create additional envi-ronmental degradation and foster further conflicts. As the war- torn states’ incomes often end up in private pockets they become financially exhausted. For example, in the DRC, a large number of public officials benefit from the wars on a personal level and the revenues of the natural resources do not enrich the state. The DRC remains unable to build strong governmental institutions, and the environmental degrada-tion continues and, as a result, the populadegrada-tion suffers.21 Consequently, infrastructure deteriorates, governmental institutions become non- functioning and public officials are underpaid, if paid at all, which further nurtures corruption and instability. The environmental damage caused in relation to armed conflict impedes the outlook for peace and for the societies to recover.22

16 Crawford and Bernstein (n 10) 15– 16.

17 UNEP, The Democratic Republic of the Congo Post- Conflict Environmental Assess Synthesis for Policy Makers (Nairobi: UNEP, 2011), 26.

18 Oglete, Shambaugh, and Kormos (n 15) 3– 4.

19 Carl Bruch and others, ‘Post- conflict Peace building and Natural Resources’ (2009) Yearbook of International Environmental Law 58, 67.

20 Onita Das, Environmental Protection, Environmental Security and Armed conflict, A Sustainable Development Perspective (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2013), 122– 3; Michael Bothe et al.,

‘International Law Protecting the Environment During Armed Conflict: Gaps and Opportunities’ (2010) International Review of the Red Cross 570– 1.

21 Phoebe Okowa, ‘Sovereignty Contests and the Protection of Natural Resources in Conflict Zones’

(2013) 66 Current Legal Problems 33, 40– 2.

22 UNEP (n 12) 19.