Timber and conflict minerals cause deforestation and extinction---DRC’s a key hotspot.

Introduction The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has been endowed with a wealth of biodiversity and natural resources, including the world’s second largest tropical rainforest, making it one of the two great ‘lungs of the earth’ along with the Amazon (Seyler et al. 2010). The country has also been blighted by almost two decades of armed conflict since the spill over from the Rwandan Genocide in 1994 led to an invasion of the DRC in 1996 (see Brisman and South 2013; South and Brisman 2013). Intra- and inter-state conflict has continued since then, including what has been termed ‘Africa’s World War’ (Prunier 2009; Stearns 2011), as well as the recent M23 rebellion in North Kivu. The DRC therefore makes an excellent case study to examine the interaction between the environment, natural resource wealth and conflict. While this interaction has attracted some headline news coverage, reporting has tended to focus on natural resources such as coltan, gold and diamonds, and far less so on nature itself, in the form of wildlife and forestry. The interaction of these living resources and conflict has generally been significantly overlooked. There is a need for the exploitation of ‘nature’ and of ‘natural resources’ to each be studied in their own right. The intention of this chapter is to examine specific issues relating to nature conservation and conflict in the DRC. For too long, the living environment has taken a back seat in studies about conflict, and has usually received attention only from those with a conservationist focus, who have tended to examine the impact of conflict on the environment, rather than the role the environment could play in contributing to conflict (see, e.g., Brisman and South 2013; Clark 2013; Shambaugh et al. 2001). The emergence of green criminology and the growing appreciation of the security threat posed by the illegal wildlife trade and climate change have both helped to rectify this, but there is still a need to mainstream the study of the living environment into conflict studies (Milburn 2012). The chapter begins with a more detailed explanation for the focus on the living environment before examining the different conflicts that have taken place in the DRC and their impacts. The chapter demonstrates that while such impacts have been predominantly detrimental, in some places, particularly with regard to forestry, conflict has simultaneously – and somewhat perversely – acted as effective means of conservation. The chapter then reviews the way in which environmental resources have sustained conflict in the DRC by providing the means for funding of rebel groups and creating incentives to maintain instability. Finally, the chapter examines an often-overlooked area – the impact the environment can have in promoting peacebuilding and post-conflict recovery. It evaluates the environmental peacebuilding work undertaken in the DRC to date and presents further potential approaches that could help to both improve security and protect the environment from unsustainable exploitation. Nature, Not Natural Resources The living environment is often relegated to a low position of importance, subsumed by resources such as diamonds whose role in contributing to conflict is well-known, well studied and well-reported (e.g., Brisman and South 2013; Clark 2013; South and Brisman 2013). Because the living environment does not seem to offer the same potential for monetary profit as some other sources of wealth, such as precious metals and minerals, it is often relegated to a lower position of importance and so the interaction of the living environment and conflict is overlooked. While the living environment could simply receive further study in conjunction with the topic of natural resources, three key distinctions between the living environment and natural resources warrant a separate study focus: first, the renewable nature of the living environment that offers long-term value; second, the valuable ecosystem services provided by the living environment; and third, simply because the living environment has been overlooked for so long, it requires separate study to establish its importance in the study of conflict. These three distinctions are fleshed out below. The first distinction is that the living environment is a renewable rather than non-renewable resource, and, as such, can provide valuable monetary and in-kind value in perpetuity. For example, a forest can provide revenue from the sale of timber as well as function as a habitat for wildlife that can in turn provide a source of protein to local communities in the form of bushmeat, and this can be maintained in the long-term if the forest is well-managed. In contrast, non-renewable resources, such as diamonds or coltan, provide income only from a one-off sale of the resource. As such, the living environment can be considered as an asset that pays ongoing dividends, providing a regular source of income while maintaining its underlying value. It is, therefore, crucial to managing the living environment to allow continued resource extraction in sustainable ways that prevents environmental degradation. While it is common to consider that non-renewable resources, such as gold or coal need to be carefully managed, the same is equally true of the living environment. The living environment has another value in the form of ecosystem services. It provides both in-kind services, such as improved soil-fertility for farmers, as well as monetary benefit from the consumption of resources such as timber (Juniper 2013; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005; ten Brink et al. 2012). In contrast, resources such as diamonds and coltan offer only a monetary benefit. Destruction of the living environment therefore has implications for the long-term ability of a country to recover and prosper in the post-conflict period (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). Given that the environment is the ‘wealth of the poor’, who are heavily dependent on it for their survival and prosperity, protection of the living environment is thus vital to enable a successful post-conflict recovery process (Mrema et al. 2009). Finally, simply because the living environment has for so long been on the periphery of conflict study there is a need for specific study from a criminological and security perspective to effectively analyse the role that the living environment plays in conflict (Milburn 2012). In addition, far greater cooperation and coordination is required between conservation organisations and humanitarian and development organisations in regions of armed conflict in order to protect the living environment, both for its own sake and to preserve the ecosystem services for people living in these regions in the post-conflict period. Accordingly, work needs to be conducted to improve the perception of the importance of the living environment and subsequently to encourage cooperation between different agencies for its protection (Shambaugh et al. 2001). Conflict in the DRC The conflicts that have affected the DRC remain complex and the reasons behind them remain difficult to fully understand (Prunier 2009; Stearns 2011). A brief summary of the conflicts and most significant remaining rebel forces in the country is set out below. The origins of conflict lie in the spill-over effects of the 1994 Rwandan Genocide, which led to the first invasion of the DRC by Rwandan and Ugandanbacked rebels who took control of the country under the new presidency of Laurent Kabila. A second conflict occurred soon after, which has been termed ‘Africa’s World War’ (Prunier 2009; Stearns 2011) due to the number of African states involved in the conflict. This conflict ended with a 2003 peace accord, but since then, there has continued to be latent insecurity in eastern DRC. In particular, instability has plagued the North and South Kivu provinces, where the remnants of the génocidaires continue to operate in the form of the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR) rebel group and where Rwanda continues to exert its influence through the support of rebel groups, including the National Congress for the Defence of the People (CNDP) and their most recent incarnation as the M23s.1 This range of conflicts had a significant effect on the environment in the DRC, including the devastation wrought on forests in the Kivus as a result of the refugee camps established there and the subsequent flight of refugees westwards. Accurate figures are difficult to come by and so the exact extent of the impact of conflict on the DRC is hard to measure, but some studies attempt to estimate the effects on the environment. The Impact of Conflict on the Environment in the DRC The effects of conflict on biodiversity in the DRC have been largely, but not wholly, negative. Poaching and deforestation – by armed groups as a source for funding and by communities for bushmeat and firewood – has wrought significant harm on a plethora of species and protected areas. Forestry has nevertheless remained largely well protected, with deforestation levels far below those of neighbouring countries or those experienced as a consequence of the civil war in Liberia and Sierra Leone. Some areas, however, have still been severely deforested as a result of the conflict, particularly those close to the refugee camps in the east of the country. The Virunga National Park suffered especially from the influx of refugees from Rwanda after the genocide in the mid 1990s because the majority of refugees settled in camps in and around Goma, in close proximity to, or inside, the national park. At first, these refugees gathered deadwood from the forest. When this supply was exhausted, they started to cut down trees for firewood. Conservation efforts were futile, not only because of the sheer numbers of refugees, but also because the defeated Rwandan Army was regrouping and taking control of the camps and thus there was little the park rangers could do in the face of the threat refugees posed (Brauer 2009). The ongoing presence of camps around the park as a result of conflict and insecurity since then have continued to put stresses and strains on the park and it is estimated that at the peak of the crisis, 89 hectares of forest were being lost in the Virungas each day due to firewood harvesting (UNEP 2011). The forest suffered, but the mountain gorilla population in the Virungas2 has increased over the last two decades, although this appears to be more due to growth in the populations in Rwanda and Uganda than in the DRC (Brauer 2009). Congolese gorillas seem to have suffered far more from the Rwandan Civil War and genocide and the subsequent Congo War than those on the Rwandan side, who are generally better studied and protected (Brauer 2009). The threat of violence has restricted access to the gorillas in the DRC, whereas the greater security and successful tourist industry in Rwanda has provided far better access, infrastructure and financial incentives to carry out work to protect the gorillas and promote a growth in numbers. In contrast, several gorillas have been killed in the Congolese section of the gorilla habitat as retaliation for efforts by park rangers to limit the charcoal trade and its resulting deforestation (Nelleman et al. 2010). Another protected area that has been badly affected by conflict has been the Kahuzi-Biega National Park. Much like in the Virunga National Park, refugees from the Rwandan Civil War and genocide set up camps in the Kahuzi-Biega National Park and soon began felling trees for building materials and firewood. One of the differences, however, is that for the Virunga National Park the invasion of Rwanda and the beginning of the first Congolese War provided some respite from the destruction wrought by the camps as the refugees were forced west across the country, whereas the Kahuzi-Biega National Park suffered immensely as refugees fled directly through the park, poaching elephants and decimating the gorilla population. It is estimated that as a result of this movement and the ongoing effects of conflict in the region, the elephant population has declined from 1,350–3,600 to almost zero, and the eastern lowland gorilla population has been reduced from 17,000 to 2,000–3,000 (Brauer 2009). The successful tourist industry has also been decimated by the war, as latent conflict and lack of stability has discouraged visitors to the Kahuzi-Biega National Park, resulting in a loss of funds and thus the ability to further protect against environmental degradation. Better facilities in the Virunga National Park, as well as interest in the popular and better-known mountain gorilla, has also contributed to the loss of interest in and protection for the eastern lowland gorillas in Kahuzi-Biega. The Kahuzi-Biega National Park also faces mining problems, as is the case in many areas of the DRC. Illegal extraction of minerals, such as gold and coltan that occurred under the control of a militia, is frequently accompanied by the felling of trees and poaching of animals for bushmeat to feed those employed in the mines and as a secondary source of income through the provision of charcoal and meat to communities in the area (Nelleman et al. 2010). The presence of valuable natural resources in parts of Kahuzi-Biega National Park and elsewhere, therefore contributes to environmental harm, both from polluted water run-off and destruction caused by the mineral mines themselves, as well as the additional harm caused by the presence of workers there. Because the militias operating in these regions are armed and outnumber the limited number of Congolese Wildlife Service (ICCN) rangers working in these areas, it is especially difficult for the ICCN rangers to prevent the direct and associated environmental harms caused by mining activities. Other protected areas and their wildlife have also suffered huge losses through the course of the conflicts described above. For example, while accurate numbers are difficult to obtain, it is estimated that the number of elephants in Garamba National Park, in the Northeastern part of the DRC, has fallen from 20,000 in the 1970s to fewer than 2,000 today (Agger and Hutson 2013). The Okapi Faunal Reserve, to offer another example, has suffered losses as a result of the conflict as rebel forces have moved into the area, sacked the headquarters of the ICCN, and have started hunting for bushmeat and ivory, both for sale and to feed the soldiers based between Bunia and Kisangani (Beyers et al. 2011). The worst effects of the conflict in this reserve came between 2002 and 2004 as rebel militias fought in areas of high elephant density (Beyers et al. 2011). Since then, there have been periods of respite, as control of the territory has been largely regained by ICCN, with support from the Congolese Army (FARDC), but in 2009, there was another increase in poaching led by the FARDC (Beyers et al. 2011). Throughout the DRC as a whole, it is estimated that elephant populations have fallen from over 100,000 fifty years ago to fewer than 20,000 today, and their numbers continue to drop (Hart 2009). It can therefore be seen that many protected areas have endured significant losses in wildlife and forestry as a result of the conflict and accompanying refugee crisis. But from a purely ecological perspective, conflict itself is not necessarily the only cause of ecological destruction and may in fact have had some protective consequences. While the forestry of the DRC has suffered the effects of conflict, deforestation has been far worse in other nations such as Liberia or Indonesia. In spite of the DRC’s great swathes of forest, which are comfortably the largest in Africa, the current annual logging rate of 0.33 per cent remains far below other states in Central and West Africa, and this can be attributed to the conflict in the DRC, which has largely prevented mass forest exploitation in the country (Seyler et al. 2010). In other words, whereas some countries have experienced mass deforestation (due to a lack of other economic opportunities), conflict in the DRC has prevented deforestation from occurring at the same rate and on the same scale. The number of active timber companies in the DRC declined by around threequarters and many sawmills have closed or reduced their capacity due to insecurity in the DRC and are instead waiting for stability to return to the region so that they can reengage their capital in timber exploitation. Most of the DRC’s export timber is found in northern Equateur and Orientale provinces, both of which are controlled by rebel groups, and Kisangani was the main transfer site for moving it down river to Kinshasa. Somewhat ironically, armed conflict has served to protect some of DRC’s forests by severely restricting the timber trade in some regions (Baker et al. 2003).In addition, the dilapidated state of infrastructure in the DRC has prevented the use of capital for logging and hindered the ability of companies or groups to export timber in great quantities, and rebel forces have been able to prevent transportation on the River Congo – the only other option in the country for transporting goods to markets. While rebel groups have felled trees and exported timber to assist in the funding of their campaigns, the overall effect of the conflict on the DRC’s forests has not been that severe – at least in comparison to the timber exportation for four other African countries: Cameroon, Gabon, the Ivory Coast and Liberia. All four of these countries have a small fraction of the forestry that the DRC contains, and yet each has exported more than double the amount of wood that the DRC has exported in the same time frame (Baker et al. 2003). While overall rates of deforestation in the DRC have been low, conflict in the DRC has forced some companies to log in government-held areas and locations where rebels are absent in order to recoup their investments because they cannot carry on logging in rebel held areas. This has placed greater pressure on the Bas-Congo forest, which has been the worst affected area, because there is both easy access to the forest and it lies in close proximity to the port city of Matadi as well as Kinshasa. Furthermore, when government employees do not receive their wages, they are often instead paid with forest concessions. Additional deforestation and subsequent soil erosion and soil loss has been due to subsistence agriculture on steep slopes. The conclusion, then, is that conflict in some regions of the DRC has reduced deforestation for timber export in those regions, but in so doing has stressed those regions that are conflict-free; those conflict-free regions have experienced even further strain because of deforestation linked to economic instability (e.g., forest concessions in lieu of salary, felling trees for subsistence agriculture) (Baker et al. 2003). While the conflict in the DRC has therefore served as an unfortunate but effective protection mechanism for much of the country’s forestry, severe threats remain. As worldwide forestry declines, the DRC’s well-preserved forests will be of increasing appeal to timber firms. If, as seems likely, the country continues to be afflicted by insecurity and weak and corrupt central and local governments, it will attract the most unscrupulous of logging firms, with little interest in sustainable logging practices. This increases the probability that the DRC’s forests will start to be more adversely affected by logging, both in terms of the number of trees cut down and areas in which they are felled. Companies more interested in shortterm profit than sustainable forestry and that are willing to pay bribes to increase their logging activities and exports will help entrench corruption and prevent a real change to forestry law and the enforcement thereof, thereby threatening the long-term vitality of the DRC’s forests (Baker et al. 2003).