Philippe Guiton

Regional Relief Manager
Africa World Vision,
Nairobi

Perspective

Breaking the circle of poverty and conflict

In the period from the end of the Cold War to the year 2000, 104 conflicts were recorded worldwide, 88 of them purely domestic. Old conflicts temporarily suppressed by the superpowers' confrontation over several decades resurfaced, often exacerbated by ethnic and religious tensions. And by poverty. Recent conflicts have tended to be much more violent, and 90% of the victims have been civilians, mainly women and children. Sometimes these conflicts persist through pillage of natural resources, illicit trade, labour exploitation, land grabbing and mafia-style criminal activities. Examples in Africa include Liberia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Angola and Sierra Leone.

That conflict leads to hunger is obvious; that the majority of today's armed conflicts are concentrated in regions heavily dependent on agriculture, reinforces the pattern. Such conflicts severely affect food production by the destruction of crops and livestock, and by forcing people to leave their land and any food stocks. Conflicts also disrupt the distribution systems and markets that facilitate the safe production, distribution and consumption of food.

Sudan, for example, could easily feed itself were it not for the 18 year on-going civil war. In Sudan, land is plentiful and fertile, and the Nile could be utilised for irrigation. But Sudan is permanently food insecure, and combatants even use hunger as a weapon, starving opposing populations into submission. In some cases food aid has been diverted by combatants, and control over humanitarian aid been used to influence the population to support one fighting group or another. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, fertile areas in the east, which used to produce surplus food that was sold to the major cities in the west, are now not even producing enough for the local population. The conflict has rendered access to the main markets impossible, and occupying armies live off the people, taking whatever food they can. By doing so they discourage farmers from producing any more food than the basic quantity that they need to survive.

Western governments are naturally unhappy about the huge costs they face in conflict resolution and peacekeeping. It is clear, however, that if they want to reduce conflict, they need to invest in long term food security for the poor. Unfortunately, the evidence from recent years suggests that governments in both developed and developing countries have failed to see the link between hunger and conflict, since they have actually been reducing financial support for the poor. Official development assistance to Africa fell by 21% over the period 1992-97, and aid to agriculture plummeted almost 50% in real terms between 1986-97. Furthermore, of the total aid allocated to developing countries, a growing slice - around 10% - is being allocated to emergency assistance, leaving less for development work. However, although short-term relief intervention is necessary to save lives, it does not offer any long-term solution to break the cycle of violence and poverty.

It is also increasingly difficult for African governments and NGOs to secure donor funding for rehabilitation, long-term food security and income generating programmes in countries that are experiencing conflict or trying to recover from conflict. At best, donors provide funds to reconstruct homes and public infrastructure; these projects, though highly visible and commendable, neither re-build the economic system of a country nor help farmers to increase food production.

As well as governments, other development organisations also need to consider how conflict mitigation and prevention can be included in the work they do. Initiatives such as the Local Capacity for Peace framework have now been developed to ensure that humanitarian aid does not increase tensions or fuel conflicts, as has happened in the past. Non-government organisations can seldom have a major impact on the big conflicts, as for example between rebels and governments, but they can have a positive impact on local conflicts, such as between farmers and pastoralists or between different ethnic groups. World Vision has been doing such grassroots work in Rwanda and southern Sudan, where opposing communities have been brought together in addressing a common goal, that of improving their food security. This has led to a marked reduction in tension between the communities, and the projects have the potential to be replicated many times elsewhere, and on a larger scale.

The poor need to be given hope for a better future, but present donors' policies, in addition to the bad governance of some African governments, offer little, if any, hope to the poorest of the poor. Only by supporting long-term food security will we be able to break the vicious circle of poverty and conflict and reduce the regional tensions, instability and migrations that frequently involve quite distant countries. All countries, especially the major donors, should recognise their self-interest in providing the means to break the link between poverty and conflict.

Back to top