Course:CONS200/2025WT2/Green Militarization: The Militarization of Conservation and Wildlife Protection in Africa

From UBC Wiki

Introduction & Background Information

Green militarization refers to the increasing use of military approaches, tactics, and technologies in the name of wildlife conservation, particularly in biodiversity-rich regions such as Sub-Saharan Africa. As poaching and environmental degradation have escalated, conservation efforts have shifted toward militarized strategies that include armed patrols, surveillance technologies, and counterinsurgency-style operations[1]. While proponents argue that these methods are necessary to combat the urgent threat of species extinction, critical perspectives highlight their harmful consequences for both local communities and the ecosystems they claim to protect. In many cases, these strategies have resulted in the forced displacement of Indigenous peoples, human rights abuses, and the expansion of state militaries under the guise of environmental protection[2]. The growing trend of green militarization not only echoes colonial legacies but also risks undermining long-term conservation goals by prioritizing security and control over inclusive and equitable environmental governance.

Historical Information

The idea of using force in conservation is not new; in colonial times, local people were often removed from their land so that parks could be created[3]. Even after countries became independent, many protected areas kept these exclusionary rules, and now they are being enforced with military-style power[4]. This legacy of exclusion and control continues to shape current conservation practices in many regions of Africa.

Scope/Scale of the Problem

The illegal wildlife trade is a global issue, worth between €8 to €20 billion each year, and green militarization predominantly occurs to combat this issue[5]. African countries like Kenya, Botswana, and South Africa have responded with strong military action, including arming park rangers and using foreign troops for training[6].

Intensity/Frequency/Severity of Impacts

Unfortunately, these militarized approaches often hurt local communities. In Botswana and Kenya, for example, there have been reports of human rights abuses like beatings, evictions, and even killings by park rangers[4]. These actions create fear and anger among local people, who may then stop supporting conservation efforts.

Rangers themselves are put in dangerous conditions, often with little training or support, turning conservation areas into conflict zones[1]. The severity of the impacts is felt both by local residents and the rangers who are tasked with enforcing these measures.

Variables Influencing Those Impacts

Supporters of green militarization argue that poachers are well-armed and dangerous, so similar tactics are needed to stop them. However, this view often ignores the real reasons people poach: poverty, unemployment, and weak law enforcement[2]. In some places, people are forced into poaching by criminal networks or are simply trying to survive.

Private security companies and foreign donors have also become involved, bringing in military tactics that may not fit the local context[5]. These actors are not always accountable to local people and sometimes use harsh strategies that make the situation worse.

Additionally, the media and conservation narratives often frame poaching as a "war" and rangers as heroes, while poachers are labeled as criminals or terrorists[3]. This framing oversimplifies the issue and hides the socio-economic realities that lead individuals to poach, reinforcing harmful stereotypes and colonial perspectives[1].

Alternative Approaches and Potential Solutions

On the other hand, community-based conservation models—like the ones used in Malawi—have had more success. These programs involve local people in protecting wildlife and allow them to benefit through jobs or eco-tourism[6]. When people feel included and valued, they are more likely to protect animals and the environment.

Colonial Legacy of Green Militarization In Africa

Colonial Structure

The structural foundation of colonialism in Africa has had lasting effects on conservation policies, which have often favoured the interests of colonial states over that of indigenous communities across the continent. This materializes in the enactment of Green Militarization as a conservation strategy. During colonial rule, foreign powers took possession of African lands, creating national parks or protected areas without the consultation or consideration of the livelihoods of local populations [7]. Parks were created with the idea that wilderness must be protected. As a result, Indigenous populations across the continent were forcefully removed from their ancestral lands, which was justified by a need to preserve biodiversity [7]. Western ideologies of conservation we implemented upon the land, and deemed indigenous people as unfit to conserve the areas because their methods differed than those of colonial influence[7]. Policies rooted in colonialist ideology and racial hierarchy were administered. The consequences of these polices included the prevention of indigenous people from accessing ancestral land, and the dispossession of livelihood and culture from indigenous groups[8].

An example of such policies is the “shoot on sight” policies enforced in some African countries such as Kenya, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe[8]. While these policies have been somewhat successful in targeting armed poachers, many of the victims have been impoverished locals using land that was once their own for sustenance [8] Local communities were forcibly removed and barred from protected areas, making it illegal for them to access these areas and the consequence resulting in death or extreme injury. The reasoning behind this form of conservation policy lies in the colonial perspective that frames poachers and trespassers as immoral in comparison to western conservationists, ultimately continuing to reinforce damaging power structures[8].

Disregard for Local Knowledge

Policies that are implemented which centre militarization as the primary method of conservation disregard Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS). For centuries before colonial powers dominated African communities, they developed sophisticated environmental management practices that sustained the land efficiently [9]. Colonial perspectives frame these systems as primitive in comparison to western methods. Western conservation models were favoured and continue to be imposed despite their reliance on exclusionary and militaristic strategies[10]. Many conservation initiatives in Africa have treated indigenous people as threats to biodiversity, rather than as stewards and members of the land[10]. This perspective justified the establishment of conservation areas that prioritized tourism and elite hunting expeditions as well as military combative force over the well being of local populations [9]. Prominence of green militarization continues present western methods as superior to IKS through the influence of former colonial powers and international organizations. This also diminishes the sovereignty of African states, as it displays them as in need of external western guidance to manage natural resources and the environment[7].

Forces and Tactics

Military Forces

Botswana

Botswana Defence force emblem

The Botswana Defence force (BDF), being the country's military since 1977, took over anti-poaching duties from the Department of Wildlife in the late 1980s to establish a force better armed and trained for the prevalent cross-border poaching the country faces [11]. Considerable success came with the force's initiation; the extra power to plan and missions combined with the limited human settlement in their main areas of operation allowed the BDF to consistently bring down criminal groups with few casualties and avoid coming into conflict with civilian lives and interests [11].

Cameroon

In Cameroon, the Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife's [MINFOF] anti-poaching strategy established a paramilitary body of forestry agents responsible for all protected areas in the country [7]. The number of agents as of 2012 was set to 776, though MINFOF has complained that this is too low to fully patrol all protected areas [7].

Vehicles with Virunga Park logo parked in the park's nature
Vehicles of the Virunga National Park

Democratic Republic of the Congo

The European Union's European Commission (EC), who oversees many public-private partnerships (PPPs) globally, has had ties to the DRC since the 1990s where they have supported the conservation efforts most notably in Virunga National Park [12]. The Virunga Foundation in 2006, funded by the EC, trained a paramilitary elite anti-poaching unit through a private security company [12]. Additional military training was given to park guards in 2009 which then started working together with the Congolese Army [12].

South Africa

In Kruger National Park, the response to poachers has been to enlist a retired army major who has begun work on implementing multi-layered militarization [13]. Rangers, soldiers, military leaders, public and private military firms have been enlisted into an arms race against poachers, escalating their level of sophistication to match the other [13].

South Africa's marine protected areas also have militarized operations. When implementing fishing restrictions on the Western Cape of South Africa, the contested continuation of varying-scale-and-legality fishing operations prompted the creation of peace officer roles called "Compliance Officers" [14]. These officers are meant to ensure the legal operations of fishing under new legislation and after pushback, criticism, and violent poaching activities, the fishing industry began carrying weapons and restraints along with collaboration with the navy for land and sea operations [14].

Zimbabwe

After independence in 1980, the Zimbabwean patrol 'boys' who were serving under the white-colonizer 'forest officers' of Rhodesia were given arms and rebranded as the 'forest guards' and made responsible for the reserves [15]. In 1991, the Forestry Commission hired a former Zimbabwe Republic Police Constabulary and war veteran who restructured the forest guard into a paramilitary guard force called the Forest Protection Unit [15]. For multinational operations, the army and police conduct anti-poaching efforts [15].

Tactics and Operation

"Shoot-To-Kill" Policies

These policies revolve around allowing personnel in the park to shoot suspected poachers on site extra-judicially, in the mindset that it will serve as the greatest deterrent for poaching [16]. These policies often go unpublicized and so are hard to conclusively track [17]. Announcement or evidence of its current or past use have been found in Kenya, Zimbabwe, Tanzania, Malawi, Uganda, South Africa, and Botswana [17][18]. These policies are immensely controversial in their debated considerations of human rights, social cost, and legality for their circumstances [17][16].

Road from Victoria Falls to the Robins Area in Hwange National Park, Zimbabwe

Poor Working Conditions

For the personnel who work in these parks, many suffer poor working conditions and suffer occupational violence. In Zimbabwe, the forest guards report abuse in their training, being supplied with outdated equipment they fear the use of, provided with less than adequate food, and other cost-cutting measures that simply make their jobs more dangerous [15]. In South Africa, due to harsh living conditions, a training program to work in Kruger National Park had a 60% dropout rate despite prescreening interviews and it being only two weeks long [19].

Alternatives: Community Based Conservation and Decolonization

Solutions towards green militarism in Africa include decolonizing conservation in Africa through a shift towards community-based conservation (CBC), which prioritizes local governance, respects indigenous knowledge, and ensures that conservation benefits are equitably distributed. CBC offers a sustainable and non-violent alternative to militarized conservation through the involvement of local communities in decision-making processes, empowerment of local governance and granting them greater control over natural resources[20]. There are multiple strategies that can be applied in order to assist in this transition.

Empowering Local Governance: Indigenous self determination must be encouraged and enabled by national governments. This will give indigenous communities the authority to manage their natural resources through legal frameworks that recognize and protect their rights[10]. This involves strengthening community-based institutions and providing training in resource management[21].

Although not in Africa, empowering local governance and communities can be seen in Nepal’s anti rhino poaching tactics. Through the establishment of operation Unicornis, which called for projects oriented around community stewardship, community based intelligence networks, and community lead anti-poaching teams, there was no poaching found in the next five years in community protected areas[22]. This is in contrast to heavy poaching found in other protected areas. Operation Unicornis also provided opportunities for local communities to patrol and restore the ecology of rhino patrolled corridors. In addition, of all surveyed residents affected by the program, 78% have reported “basic infrastructure such as drinking water, trails, bridges, and heal facilities have improved due to the following conservation intervention”, and 81,6% believe that economic opportunities increased[23]. Through this, Nepal has demonstrated the effectiveness of the involvement of local communities in the fight against poaching[24].

Socially, this community involvement also helps build trust with those most affected by conservation enforcement, a trust that can be deeply eroded by militarized approaches. In South Africa’s Kruger National Park, for instance, the use of armed force has led to mistrust among local communities. As described by a local in an interview in 2012: “It’s because of the shooting. … The poachers are armed, coming with rifles. The rangers are armed as well, and in the process of arresting [men] out there in the bush, some resist arrest, and [rangers shoot back] at them. But a ranger is a well-trained somebody. When he shoots back, the possibility of some fatalities is there. And once that's happened, you've dented your image in the community. [People are saying] ‘You are a killer, you’re killing our children out there, you’re killing our husbands … you’re killing our people out there’”[25]. This highlights how the failure to involve communities meaningfully in conservation can result in long-term social damage, undermining the legitimacy and effectiveness of anti-poaching efforts.

Integrating Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS): Future conservation programs should incorporate traditional ecological knowledge and practices that have been proven to sustain biodiversity for many generations. This might include rotational farming, community-led wildlife monitoring, and sacred land conservation[15].

Reducing Militarization: A decolonized conservation approach entails the replacement of violent enforcement measures with indigenous participation in governance and non-coercive methods of biodiversity protection[8]. Community rangers and local stewardship programs can play an essential role in conservation efforts[7].

Developing Sustainable Livelihoods: Ensuring that local communities benefit economically from conservation initiatives is critical. Eco-tourism, sustainable agriculture, and community-managed wildlife conservation programs can provide alternative income sources while reducing dependence on exploitative conservation models[8].

International Cooperation on Equitable Terms: International organizations support is important for African conservation efforts, however it must be carried out it a way that respects the autonomy of local communities[20]. This means shifting external control to one partnership and mutual cooperation, where African communities have a voice in conservation policies.

Technological Based Solutions: As technology continues to improve, conservation solutions may grow alongside it. New, data driven analytics may provide alternative and better monitoring systems in this battle. An alternative financial based solution would be flooding the market with replica goods. As many endangered animals are hunted for their body parts, replica goods may be able to infiltrate the market and bring down the price, which may lower one of the largest reasons for hunting - economic profit. However, this solution may fail to address other motivations, such as pride and trophy hunting. In addition, this method requires increased coordination between conservation methods and agencies[26].

Pembient's bio-fabricated rhino horns. Image: Matthew Markus

By incorporating these strategies into conservation efforts, various social legal and financial benefits can accompany a shift towards CBC and decolonization of conservation. From a social standpoint, this would provide more benefit to local communities as it provides them with greater transparency and influence over policing and the militarization in their community. The knowledge a community has over its lands would be a great benefit to enhancing conservation efforts. An example of this would be the country of Namibia. Namibia has led Africa in devolving wildlife rights to local communities, ensuring they retain 100% of the revenue from commercial activities in communal conservancies[27]. Additionally, in terms of finances, this revenue retention allows for economic empowerment for local communities. A policy like this would also prevent corruption and exploitation of the for profit military system[28]. Unlike many African nations, Namibia avoided the rollback of community-based conservation policies after the 2000's and has continued to expand its approach. Since 1998, conservancies have grown to cover 16 million hectares, totalling to 20% of Namibia’s land, and leading to the recovery of key wildlife species like elephants, lions, and black rhinos[27]. From a legal perspective, this may give local communities more control over their own laws, empowering them to make decisions that directly affect their livelihoods and environment. This legal autonomy fosters a sense of ownership and responsibility, this integration of social governance with conservation efforts leading to more effective and sustainable conservation practices.

As a potential alternative to militarized conservation, a decolonized approach to conservation recognizes that protecting Africa’s biodiversity cannot come at the expense of human rights. By placing emphasis on community-based conservation, African nations can create a more just and effective environmental management system which respects the knowledge, traditions, and livelihoods of the people who have inhabited the land for centuries.

Conclusion

Green Militarization tactics are used in various countries across Africa such as Kenya, The Democratic Republic of Congo, Cameroon, Botswana, and South Africa to combat illegal wildlife trade and over-poaching. This is done through tactics such as the deployment of military forces, creation of paramilitary ranger units, use of retired army personnel to lead operations, collaboration with national armies, and the implementation of controversial “shoot-to-kill” policies. While Green Militarization is used as a strategy for conserving wildlife, it has a controversial reputation in the field of conservation. Many countries use military power to enforce wildlife protection which is beneficial to biodiversity, however this method can be more harmful towards local communities, livelihoods, and environments in some cases. Oftentimes, militarized approaches to conservation can undermine the socio-economic issues that facilitate the poaching of wildlife by individuals and groups. While some poach animals purely to make a profit, majority of the time ‘poaching,’ and ‘trespassing’ onto protected lands is done by local people who are victims of poverty, unemployment, and colonization looking to find sustenance in the natural environment to ensure their survival and continue cultural traditions. Other approaches, such as community based conservation (CBC), decrease the risk of causing harm to wildlife and to local communities, presenting a potentially more efficient alternative.

Overall, Green Militarization in Africa as a method for the conservation and protection of wildlife has had a number of successes but many drawbacks and shortcomings. In future, CBC can provide an opportunity for a more well rounded approach to conservation that works towards decolonizing conservation in Africa, as well as offering a sustainable and equitable alternative to militarized approaches. CBC empowers local governance, integrates indigenous knowledge, and ensures that communities benefit economically from conservation. Strategies towards this alternative method include: legal recognition of indigenous rights, sustainable livelihood development, non-violent biodiversity protection, and respectful international cooperation. Countries like Namibia have proven the success of this method, showing the social, financial, and legal benefits, while also promoting human rights and environmental sustainability.

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Duffy, Rosaleen; Massé, Francis; Smidt, Emile; Marijnen, Esther; Büscher, Bram; Verweijen, Judith; Ramutsindela, Maano; Simlai, Trishant; Joanny, Laure (2019 Apr). "Why we must question the militarisation of conservation". Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Jones, Emily Jones (2021-11-05). "Capital and Control: Neocolonialism Through the Militarization of African Wildlife Conservation".
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 P. Neumann, Roderick (September 2004). "Moral and discursive geographies in the war for biodiversity in Africa".
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Lunstrum, Elizabeth (04 Jun 2014). "Green Militarization: Anti-Poaching Efforts and the Spatial Contours of Kruger National Park". Check date values in: |date= (help)
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Duffy, Rosaleen (20 July 2017). "We Need to Talk about the Militarisation of Conservation".
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Somerville, Keith (September 18, 2018). "The Consequences of Militarizing Conservation Efforts". GLOBALGENEVA.
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 Ramutsindela, Maano; Matose, Frank; Mushonga, Tafadzwa (2022). The Violence of Conservation in Africa: State, Militarization and Alternatives. Elgar Online. ISBN 9781800885615.
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 Jones, Emily (November 2021). [10.26443/firr.v11i2.73 "Neocolonialism Through the Militarization of African Wildlife Conservation"] Check |url= value (help). International Relations Review. 11.
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 Moyo, Inocent; Cele, Hlengiwe M. S. (February 2021). "Protected areas and environmental conservation in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa: on HEIs, livelihoods and sustainable development". International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 22 – via Emerald Insight.
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 Hitchcock, Robert H. (March 2019). "The Impacts of Conservation and Militarization on Indigenous Peoples". Human Nature. 30.
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 Henk, Dan (2006). "Biodiversity and the Military in Botswana". Armed Forces & Society. 32: 273–291 – via JSTOR.
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 Marijnen, Esther (2017). "The 'green militarisation' of development aid: the European Commission and the Virunga National Park, DR Congo". Third World Quarterly. 38: 1566–1582 – via JSTOR.
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 Lunstrum, Elizabeth (2014). "Green Militarization: Anti-Poaching Efforts and the Spatial Contours of Kruger National Park". Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 104: 816–832. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2014.912545 Check |doi= value (help) – via Taylor and Francis Online.
  14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 Norton, Marieke (2016). "The militarisation of marine resource conservation and law enforcement in the Western Cape, South Africa". Marine Policy. 60: 338–344 – via Elsevier Science Direct.
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 Mushonga, Tafadzwa (2021). "The Militarisation of Conservation and Occupational Violence in Sikumi Forest Reserve, Zimbabwe". Conservation and Society. 19 (1): 3–12. doi:10.4103/cs.cs_20_5 – via ProQuest. line feed character in |title= at position 64 (help) Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name ":12" defined multiple times with different content
  16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 Mogomotsi, Goemeone EJ; Madigele, Patricia Kefilwe (2017). "Live by the gun, die by the gun - Botswana's 'shoot-to-kill' policy as an anti-poaching strategy". SA Crime Quarterly. 2017 (60): 51–59 – via Sabinet.
  17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 17.2 Duffy, Rosaleen (2010). "Chapter Three. Wildlife Wars: Poaching and Anti-Poaching". Nature Crime: How We're Getting Conservation Wrong. New Haven: Yale University Press. pp. 79–112.
  18. ↑ Dickman, Amy; Johnson, Paul J; Coals, Peter; Harrington, Lauren A; Tyrrell, Peter; Somerville, Kieth; Cotterill, Alayne; Whetham, David (2020). "Wars over Wildlife: Green Militarisation and Just War Theory". Conservation and Society. 18 (3): 293–297. doi:10.4103/cs.cs_19_34.
  19. ↑ Warchol, Greg; Kapla, Dale (2012). "Policing the wilderness: A descriptive study of wildlife conservation officers in South Africa". International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice. 36 (2): 83–101. doi:10.1080/01924036.2012.669911 – via Taylor & Francis Online.
  20. ↑ 20.0 20.1 Fariss B., Demello; Powlen, Kathryn A.; Latimer, Cristopher E. (July 2022). "Catalyzing success in community-based conservation". Conservation biology. 37.
  21. ↑ Robert Y., Fidler; Mahajan, Shauna L.; Ojwang, Lenice; Samson, Obiene; Nicolas, Tanguy; Ahmadia, Gabby N.; Slade, Lorna; Obura, David O.; Beatty, Hope (April 2024). [10.1371/journal.pone.0301345 "Individual and community empowerment improve resource users' perceptions of community-based conservation effectiveness in Kenya and Tanzania"] Check |url= value (help). PLoS ONE. 19.
  22. ↑ Thapa, Kanchan; Nepal, Santosh; Thapa, Gokarna; Bhatta​, Shiv Raj; Wikramanayake, Eric (July 2013). "Past, present and future conservation of the greater one-horned rhinoceros Rhinoceros unicornis in Nepal". Oryx. Volume 47, Issue 3: 345–351 – via ResearchGate. zero width space character in |last4= at position 7 (help)
  23. ↑ Bajracharya, Siddhartha B.; Furley, Peter A.; Newton, Adrian C. (January 2008). "Impacts of Community-based Conservation on Local Communities in the Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal". Biodiversity and Conservation. Volume 15, Issue 8: 425–446 – via ResearchGate.
  24. ↑ Foster, Sophia (October 2018). "Green Militarization and the Necessity of Local Involvement". Potentia Journal of International Affairs. 9: 68–77 – via ResearchGate.
  25. ↑ Lunstrum, Elizabeth (04 Jun 2014). "Green Militarization: Anti-Poaching Efforts and the Spatial Contours of Kruger National Park". Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 104: 816–832 – via Taylor & Francis. Check date values in: |date= (help)
  26. ↑ Chen, Fredrick (November 2017). "The Economics of Synthetic Rhino Horns". Ecological Economics. 141: 280–289 – via ScienceDirect.
  27. ↑ 27.0 27.1 Nelson, F., Patricia Muyamwa‐Mupeta, Muyengwa, S., Sulle, E., & Kaelo, D. (2021). Progress or regression? institutional evolutions of community‐based conservation in eastern and southern africa. Conservation Science and Practice, 3(1) doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.302
  28. ↑ Lunstrum, Elizabeth (February 2018). "Capitalism, Wealth, and Conservation in the Age of Security: The Vitalization of the State". Annals of the American Association of Geographers. Volume 108: 1022–1037 – via Taylor&Francis.
Seekiefer (Pinus halepensis) 9months-fromtop.jpg
 This conservation resource was created by Course:CONS200.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Course:CONS200/2025WT2/Green_Militarization:_The_Militarization_of_Conservation_and_Wildlife_Protection_in_Africa&oldid=860406"