What do the peace processes and various agreements on geo-political issues in Africa have in common? Almost all of them are about political power sharing. This is partly due to the international community’s approach to peace building processes, with an over-emphasis on ‘tangible outcomes and expectations’ such as timetables for holding of national elections. However, one should bear in mind that conflicts and social tussles do not exist in a vacuum, especially when we focus on resources as major drivers of these conflicts.
In 2009, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) conducted a study that looked at the role of natural resources and the environment in conflict and peace-building processes. The organisation noted that 40% of all interstate conflicts since 1960 have a link to natural resources. The study also supports the idea that much of the peace initiatives and conflict management processes should take cognisance of the novelty of resources management as a component of peace processes. The systemic reality is also that only a ¼ of peace agreements for conflicts with links to natural resources address the management and governance of these resources.
It is encouraging to note that official conflict management processes and initiatives in the Great Lakes Region have sought to reverse this trend. There is now an observed shift, and a vigorous one for that matter, towards clothing conflict management with a large component of natural resources management or natural resources governance. The aspect of ‘natural resource conflict management’ has seen member states of the International Conference of the Great Lakes (IC/GLR) make concerted efforts towards addressing a major driver of conflict and underdevelopment - the illegal exploitation and use of natural resources.
It should also be noted that Eastern Africa has also seen a proliferation of sub-regional organisations that have cross cutting mandates. For example, the efforts of the East African Community (EAC) in addressing aspects of natural resource conflicts and issues related to shared trans-boundary natural resources have complemented the ICGLR process, especially in support of the Protocol against the illegal exploitation of natural resources. The ICGLR is emerging with concerted political support and weight in addressing the issue of resource conflicts.
With these novel processes in mind, how would Eastern Africa and the Great Lakes Region in particular critically realise a rational conflict management regime that addresses this major driver of conflict? The answer might lie with current ICGLR developments in the aspect of management of illegal exploitation of natural resources and related environmental crimes.
Towards this end, a Great Lakes Region equivalent of the ‘Kimberley process’ might be realized sooner than later in the region. During the week of 4 October 2010 in Nairobi, Kenya, there was a meeting of the ICGLR Member State’s Ministers in charge of mining, resources and environment portfolios on the illegal exploitation of natural resources in the region. This meeting was based on the observation that mining of minerals in the Great Lakes Region has been and is still associated with violent conflict, the financing of rebellions, illegal trading and criminal networks, the evasion of payment of state revenues as well as the mistreatment of local populations. In particular, the populations of certain member states namely Burundi, DR Congo, Rwanda and Uganda, have been most affected by these violent conflicts and their attendant consequences.
A systematic natural resource conflict management process has to some extent been illustrated by the sequential and targeted approach towards curbing this phenomenon. Focusing on a harmonised natural resource governance regime in the region, this particular meeting opened up a process that could in time ensure transparency in governance as widely defined - hitting at the heart of the dominant driver of conflict in the region.
In cognisance of the life of natural resource conflicts and processes, the meeting sought to seal all loopholes that define this cycle. On the legitimisation of mineral trading and extraction, a first agenda and pillar seeks to implement a regional certification mechanism for minerals. This is the first complementary effort to the already existing regime that deals with diamonds effectively, the Kimberley process. The parallel process would remedy certain minerals, which have shaken statecraft in the region namely Coltan (Colombo-tantalite, cassiterite, wolframite and gold). These are rare minerals that are plentiful in virtually all the Great Lakes countries.
What do these minerals have to do with defining much of the situation when it comes to the human security of the region? These minerals, through empirical evidence and corroborated studies have their implication in conflict in the region. This is for example observed in different studies by the Heildelberg Institute’s conflict barometers of 2008 and 2009 respectively.
The second sequential approach that could work if properly coordinated has to do with the improvement of data populating mechanisms. This, it should be noted, ought to also provide a link between identification, tracing and information exchange when it comes to environmental crimes, most of which have a cross border character. Connected to this would be improving data collection tactics and processes through the setting up of appropriate databases with comprehensive information on exports, imports and production of mineral resources. This has to cut across both legally mined resources and traded thereof, and also illegally mined and traced resources or minerals.
The third sequential aspect deals with the social-cultural element of the natural resource conflicts. Connected to this point is the reality that much of the region and the continent have its people’s livelihoods defined by primary products and means of production. The informal artisanal industry represents this segment and is a main social cultural resource towards effective resource conflict management. The very formalisation of this industry and ensuring that it delivers tangible benefits to miners through building their capacities and transforming their social-economic livelihoods, is important.
Another aspect is closely connected to the reality that environmental crimes or illegal resource trading and mining are conducted in highly organised crime networks that are also trans-boundary in nature. To deal with this variable in a rational resource conflict management process, it is important for member states under the ICGLR process to subscribe and join the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI). EITI is a systemic process that sets a global standard for transparency in oil, gas and mining. It is an effort to make natural resources benefit all and would be a great standard to ensure transparency in natural resource management and environmental crime management for that matter. This also critically addresses end-users (and uses) of minerals to forge an integrated approach that brings all actors together to curb illegal exploitation of minerals or environmental crimes.
For the coherent implementation of this approach that define much of the science of natural resources conflict management, ICGLR as a secretariat should continuously engage with other systemic secretariats like the Kimberly process, other sub-regional organizations like the EAC, the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) and the Eastern Africa Police Chiefs Cooperation Organization (EAPCCO) - all of which are dealing with thematic resource conflict, environmental crime management and trans-boundary resource aspects.
It is clear that the time is ripe for action. There is a political leverage that is positive to the process and the onus is now on both the secretariat and member states to tap into all potential mechanisms in the region that will make this process move forward.
UN Photo/Martine Perret