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

From UBC Wiki

Introduction

Green militarization in Africa involves using military tactics, personnel, and technology in conservation, often to combat poaching. Rooted in colonial-era practices, this approach treats protected areas like Virunga National Park (DRC) as strategic assets, sometimes prioritizing state and economic interests over local communities[1]. While it strengthens anti-poaching efforts, it also displaces indigenous populations and restricts their land access, leading to accusations of neocolonialism. Critics argue that militarized conservation creates conflict between armed rangers and local poachers, raising ethical concerns about security versus community rights[2].

Background

Historical Context[2]

Green militarization began in the 1980s to combat poaching, particularly of elephants and rhinos. Governments and conservation groups adopted military tactics, arming rangers and enforcing "shoot-on-site" policies. These aggressive measures, backed by international funding, shaped today's militarized conservation efforts.

Scope and Scale of the Problem[2]

Militarized conservation operates across Africa, involving armed forces, paramilitary units, and private security firms. Countries like South Africa, Kenya, Tanzania, Botswana, and the DRC use advanced surveillance, including drones and satellite tracking. The role of NGOs and private firms has blurred conservation, security, and profit-driven motives.

Human Rights and Ethical Concerns[1]

While protecting wildlife, militarized conservation has displaced indigenous communities and led to human rights abuses. National parks are treated as high-security zones, restricting local access. In Virunga National Park (DRC), conflicts between conservation forces, rebels, and poachers have caused ranger deaths and human rights violations.

Intensity and Frequency of Impacts[3]

Countries like Botswana, Kenya, and the DRC face frequent armed conflicts, extrajudicial killings, and forced evictions. Areas like Laikipia, Kenya, experience high conservation-related violence. Militarized operations also disrupt ecosystems, sometimes harming wildlife instead of protecting it.

Variables Influencing the Impacts[3]

Geopolitical stability, economic interests, and technology shape the effects of green militarization. While anti-poaching efforts have succeeded in some areas, they also fuel conflict and social injustices. A more community-inclusive approach is needed to balance conservation with human rights.

Include the scope/scale of the problem, intensity/frequency/severity of negative impacts, variables influencing those impacts and any other relevant information needed for understanding the issue.

Forces, Tactics, Technology

Military Forces

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[4]. 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[4].

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 Commision (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[5]. The Virunga Foundation in 2006, funded by the EC, trained a paramilitary elite anti-poaching unit through a private security company[5]. Additional military training was given to park guards in 2009 which then started working together with the Congolese Army[5].

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[6]. 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[6].

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"[7]. 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[7].

Tactics

Technology

Solutions and Alternatives

Decolonization and Community-Based Conservation

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[8]. Several key strategies can assist in a transition towards CBC:

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[9]. This involves strengthening community-based institutions and providing training in resource management[10].

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[11].

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[12]. Community rangers and local stewardship programs can play an essential role in conservation efforts[4].

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[12].

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[8]. 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[13].


There are various social legal and financial benefits that come with a shift towards CBC and decolonizing conservation:

  • Socially, 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[14].
  • Financially, 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[15]. 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[14].
  • From a legal standpoint, 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

You should conclude your Wiki paper by summarizing the topic, or some aspect of the topic.

References

  1. ↑ Jump up to: 1.0 1.1 Glasson, Ashwell B. (October 2022). "The Militarisation of Conservation in Africa".
  2. ↑ Jump up to: 2.0 2.1 2.2 Jones, Emily (2021). "Capital and Control: Neocolonialism Through the Militarization of African Wildlife Conservation".
  3. ↑ Jump up to: 3.0 3.1 Marijnen, Esther (October 2016). "Selling green militarization: The discursive (re)production of militarized conservation in the Virunga National Park, Democratic Republic of the Congo".
  4. ↑ Jump up to: 4.0 4.1 4.2 Ramutsindela, Maano; Matose, Frank; Mushonga, Tafadzwa, eds. (2022). The Violence of Conservation in Africa. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. ISBN 9781800885608.
  5. ↑ Jump up to: 5.0 5.1 5.2 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.
  6. ↑ Jump up to: 6.0 6.1 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.
  7. ↑ Jump up to: 7.0 7.1 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.
  8. ↑ Jump up to: 8.0 8.1 Fariss B., Demello; Powlen, Kathryn A.; Latimer, Cristopher E. (July 2022). "Catalyzing success in community-based conservation". Conservation biology. 37.
  9. ↑ Hitchcock, Robert H. (March 2019). "The Impacts of Conservation and Militarization on Indigenous Peoples". Human Nature. 30.
  10. ↑ 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.
  11. ↑ 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.
  12. ↑ Jump up to: 12.0 12.1 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.
  13. ↑ Chen, Fredrick (November 2017). "The Economics of Synthetic Rhino Horns". Ecological Economics. 141: 280–289 – via ScienceDirect.
  14. ↑ Jump up to: 14.0 14.1 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
  15. ↑ 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=856533"