Environmental Threats or Assets? Exploring the engagement of non-state armed actors on the protection of the environment

art by Ed Oner (Morocco)

Guillaume Charron (Independent Diplomat); Anki Sjöberg and Chloe Thomas (Fight for Humanity)

Engaging with non-state armed actors (NSAAs) on the protection of the environment is crucial because environmental degradation and armed conflicts are increasingly part of the same conversation, although these actors are often excluded from the equation.

Context

When talking about non-state armed actors (NSAAs) and environment, one immediately thinks of lawlessness, conflict, economic exploitation, and environmental degradation. Indeed, many NSAAs exploit natural resources to fund themselves through illegal and environmentally destructive logging, mining, or refineries. The myriad of armed non-state actors in the Democratic Republic of the Congo,[i] the Kachin Independence Army in Myanmar,[ii] and the Movement of Democratic Forces of Casamance in Senegal,[iii] are examples. Such practices can exacerbate the general negative impacts of the conflict and cause civilians to abandon their homes, driving them into forced displacement camps or other locations where the need for food and fuel contributes to further deforestation and resource extraction.

But it should be noted that NSAAs are not the sole cause of the natural resource overexploitation, as conflicts often arise in contexts where resource scarcity already plays a crucial, if not catalysing, role in conflict outbreak. Moreover, with climate change and the current rate of environmental degradation, tensions surrounding the use and control of natural resources are being constantly fuelled, almost always to the detriment of local and indigenous populations.

Environmental degradation in conflict is partly caused by the fact that NSAAs tend to develop in neglected peripheries where resources are already scarce, and state structures are often absent or weak.[iv] Asymmetrical and entrenched warfare boosts these dynamics as NSAAs further deplete resources and isolate themselves while confronting governments or other enemies.

What’s been done

Less commonly known is that NSAAs, particularly those with clearly stated political objectives, often have an acute awareness of the impact of environmental degradation, biodiversity loss, and climate change. This is because, albeit with some exceptions, they tend to protect and preserve the natural environment of the regions they emanate from and depend on. Moreover, because of their isolation, they tend to be aware of the limited and finite resources at their disposal and the cost of their unsustainable exploitation.

According to international humanitarian law, parties to conflict, including NSAAs, have obligations to protect the environment.[v] Arguably, NSAAs are also bound by international human rights law, at least on a ‘sliding scale’ basis, meaning that those with greater capacities and resources would be expected to do more for the respect, protection, and fulfilment of human rights. NSAAs have independently introduced policies for the protection of the environment.[vi] Some have also undertaken and continue to develop their own protective actions. For example, setting up specific institutions to deal with environmental issues and regulating finite resources such as fish, game, water, forest, etc. This can be seen in Colombia, Syria, and Turkey, notably in mountainous and jungle areas.[vii]

We still do not know much about the functioning and efficiency of the environmental regulations of NSAAs. Arguably, post-conflict orders may become more destructive than the conflicts themselves, as the little protection there was may disappear and states may be unable or unwilling to step in and fill the ‘governance gap’ in remote, hard-to-reach areas. This is noticeable in Colombia’s peace agreement with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC),[viii] or the Tamil areas of Sri Lanka.

Additionally, some organizations have decided to take more proactive environmental action by influencing and sensitizing other actors. The United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP) presented its Green State Vision at COP26 in Glasgow,[ix] and the Autonomous Administration of North and East of Syria (AANES) has organized forums and discussions to address issues of water scarcity.[x] 

Looking ahead

Where they exert de facto control over territory and population, NSAAs can play a helpful role in protecting the environment and ensuring its sustainability. To disrupt their isolation, these groups should not only be recognized for their existing contributions to environmental protection, but also invited to share—directly and indirectly their experiences and challenges at relevant international environmental discussions.[xi] To a different extent this applies to NSAAs that are not administering territories, but that have the potential to block or delay projects for environmental protection. They too could be proactively engaged and be participants—at different levels—in the formulation of environmental projects, policies, and their implementation.

In fact, as it is increasingly recognized that NSAAs must be part of solutions to problems in areas that they control or influence, they are already being engaged on several issues—humanitarian issues, human rights, peace, etc. In such engagements, it is clear that when NSAAs are integrated into the discussions, and their concerns and challenges are recognized and to some extent addressed, they are much more willing to participate in activities for the protection and well-being of the people affected by their actions. Moreover, just like humanitarian agreements, environmental agreements can be sought to limit the impact on the environment during conflict. Such measures can also help build confidence before and during peace processes.

Moreover, understanding the role that NSSAs are already playing in environmental protection, for better or worse, can help us foresee and mitigate additional or increased environmental deterioration after the end of conflict. We must understand that NSAAs can have simultaneous negative and positive impacts on the environment, as seen with the FARC in Colombia. Failure to do so may cost us—and the environment—dearly in the future.

Finally, the recognition of the right to a safe, clean, healthy, and sustainable environment at the Human Rights Council in October 2021 is a positive development that helps us by setting a new framework for environmental protection and human rights. By formally recognizing the rights’ universality, we all become responsible for the environment and destroying it is a human rights violation. This provides an opportunity—and perhaps an initial tool—to engage with NSAAs on the protection of the environment.

[i] This has been extensively covered. For example, in a UNEP expert meeting it was estimated that illegal mining and other natural resource extraction financed (at least partially) anything between 25 and 49 armed groups. Interestingly, it was estimated that the groups retained only about 2% of the value

See for example https://postconflict.unep.ch/publications/UNEP_DRCongo_MONUSCO_OSESG_final_report.pdf, p.4.

[ii] For example, the EIA has reported that the Kachin Independence Army in Myanmar has profited from illegal mining. See https://eia-international.org/wp-content/uploads/EIA-Organised-Chaos-FINAL-lr1.pdf

[iii] According to a 2020 report by EIA, deforestation caused by illegal logging of endangered rosewood in Senegal is largely controlled by Forces Démocratiques de la Casamance (MFDC). See: https://content.eia-global.org/assets/2020/06/EIA-Cashing-In-On-Chaos-HiRes.pdf

[iv] Lune-Grayson, C. (2021) ‘A plea for COP26: don’t forget people affected by conflict,’ ICRC (blog) (https://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2021/10/27/plea-cop26-people-conflict/)

[v] Murphy, V. and Obregon, H. (2015) ‘Fighting without a Planet B: how IHL protects the natural environment in armed conflict’, ICRC (blog), (https://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2021/05/25/fighting-without-planet-b/); Somer, J. (2021) Environmental protection and non-state armed groups: setting a place at the table for the elephant in the room, Conflict and Environmental Observatory,

(https://ceobs.org/environmental-protection-and-non-state-armed-groups-setting-a-place-at-the-table-for-the-elephant-in-the-room/)

[vi] Jonathan, S. (2015) Environmental protection and non-state armed groups: setting a place at the table for the elephant in the room, Conflict and Environmental Observatory,

(https://ceobs.org/environmental-protection-and-non-state-armed-groups-setting-a-place-at-the-table-for-the-elephant-in-the-room/)

[vii]Such as the ELN and FARC in Colombia, the Syrian Democratic Forces in Syria, and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party in Turkey.

[viii] See for example https://ceobs.org/assessment-of-recent-forest-loss-in-conflict-areas/ for information on forest loss in conflict areas and specifically the case of Colombia. However, this is not unique for Colombia, as the Conflict and Environmental Observatory argues “Colombia represents an opposite story to the other areas covered in this report – deforestation has followed peace, not preceded it. That said, this is not a unique outcome, with a similar pattern seen in Nepal, Sri Lanka, Ivory Coast and Peru. ”

[ix] Wenda, B. (2021) Benny Wenda: ‘Green State Vision’ our pathway to saving world’s third-largest rainforest, United Liberation Movement for West Papua (https://www.ulmwp.org/benny-wenda-green-state-vision-our-pathway-to-saving-worlds-third-largest-rain-forest)

[x] Hawar news agency (2021) International Water Forum concludes with a set of recommendations, (https://hawarnews.com/en/haber/international-water-forum-concludes-with-a-set-of-recommendations-h26949.html)

[xi] Arguably, some states or other NSAAs may not agree with this approach, but in the same way as humanitarian engagement anchors itself in IHL and notably Common article three of the Geneva Conventions, environmental engagement could base itself on the resolution on the right to a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment, which is granted not to states, but to individuals.