Biodiversity conservation and armed conflict: a warfare ecology perspective

Abstract

The activities involved in preparing for, executing, and recovering from armed conflict are globally pervasive and consequential, with significant impacts on natural systems. Effects on biodiversity are predominantly negative, produced by direct and indirect battlefield impacts, as well as the general breakdown of social, economic, and governance systems during wartime. Certain conservation opportunities do occur, however, particularly on lands set aside for training exercises, buffer zones, and peace parks. Here, the relationship between armed conflict and biodiversity is reviewed using the temporal framework of warfare ecology, which defines warfare as an ongoing process of three overlapping stages: preparations, war (armed conflict), and postwar activities. Several themes emerge from recent studies, including a heightened awareness of biodiversity conservation on military lands, the potential for scientific and conservation engagement to mitigate negative biodiversity impacts in war zones, and the importance of the postwar period for incorporating biodiversity priorities into reconstruction and recovery efforts. Research limitations and knowledge gaps are also discussed.

Vulnerability of mammals to land-use changes in Colombia’s post-conflict era

“…Increased attention has been given to the effects of warfare on biodiversity in the last two decades and Colombia is one of the areas of special attention (Dudley et al 2002, Hanson et al 2009, Lawrence et al 2015, Daskin and Pringle 2018, Hanson 2018, Suarez et al 2018. Colombia not only holds the Tropical Andes and the Tumbes-Chocó-Magdalena as biodiversity hotspots, but is also part of the Amazon region, the greatest extension of tropical forest on the earth (Myers et al 2000, FAO ITTO 2011.…”

“…In this case, the government can carry out actions to reduce the negative effects of this regionalised war on biodiversity and environment. Such actions may include (1) increasing research, (2) applying the resolutions of the United Nations against pollution in war time and the environmental protection in conflicts areas and (3) taking into account the "International Day for Preventing the Exploitation of the Environment in War and Armed Conflict" (Hanson 2018). Concerning the third stage, primates, similar to birds (Ocampo-Peñuela and Scott 2017), could be targeted by touristic activities in the post-conflict era or became flagship species in a "green economy based on lowemissions land/resource use systems" (Baptiste et al 2017).…”

“…Some countries reached a peace agreements in the last 30 years, for example: El Salvador (1992), Rwanda (1993), Bosnia and Herzegovina (1995), Sierra Leone (2000), Liberia (2003) and Burundi (2008) (Suarez et al 2018). These six countries and Colombia have a common denominator and can prospectively induce positive changes within their territories if peace is ongoing, because high biodiversity make people more resilient when war has devastated their society (Hanson 2018). Since biodiversity can be seen as an opportunity for peace building, it is important to work together with locals, researchers and former fighters with financial support to bring welfare to the people without threatening the biodiversity (Hanson 2018).…”

“…These six countries and Colombia have a common denominator and can prospectively induce positive changes within their territories if peace is ongoing, because high biodiversity make people more resilient when war has devastated their society (Hanson 2018). Since biodiversity can be seen as an opportunity for peace building, it is important to work together with locals, researchers and former fighters with financial support to bring welfare to the people without threatening the biodiversity (Hanson 2018). This first evaluation of the possible consequences of the peace agreement between Colombian government and FARC on mammals can help to improve the current scenario of peace in Colombia.…”

The end of gunpoint conservation: forest disturbance after the Colombian peace agreement

“…ecocide) (Le Billon 2001, McNeely 2003, Hanson and Machlis 2008, Butsic et al 2015. As many studies have documented forest cover change during communal, intra-state, and inter-state conflicts (Stevens et al 2011, Gorsevski et al 2012, Wilson and Wilson 2013, Nackoney et al 2014, Butsic et al 2015, Gbanie et al 2018, Sung et al 2019, Yin et al 2019, the idiosyncratic and diverse effects of conflict on forest cover have become well-defined (Ordway 2015, Baumann and Kuemmerle 2016, Hanson 2018, Grima and Singh 2019, Landholm et al 2019. However, much less is known about forest cover change processes following the cessation of conflict or the signing of a peace agreement between warring factions.…”