Table of contents
Frontmatter
Acknowledgements
Foreword
Preface
Annex 1
Annex 2
Annex 3
Abbreviations
Contributors
|
ENVIRONMENTAL AND
SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS
OF ARMED CONFLICT
IMPACTS OF CONFLICT ON URBAN AREAS
It is estimated that one in three African city-dwellers
lives in life-threatening conditions, with the number of
the urban poor expected to reach 404 million in 2015,
or 46 per cent of the population, compared to
241 million people in 1990; this percentage is
expected to increase (Auclair 2005). Conflict can have a
distorting affect on settlement and production systems,
making a bad situation even worse.
Increased urbanization can be a factor. In Angola,
for example, a combination of war-related factors
resulted in rapid and unplanned urbanization. The
population of the capital city, Luanda, doubled from
1990 to 2001, and the proportion of the total
population living in the capital is the highest of any
country in SSA (Tvedten 2001). This was in part due to
the effects the war had in rural areas, including
reduced access to agricultural land because of
landmines, related chronic food insecurity, isolation
from markets, and the general threat of violence
against civilians. Displacement was used as an
instrument of war by all parties to the conflict.
Between 1.3 million and 2 million people fled their
homes from 1992 to 1994, moving primarily to urban
areas. Between 1998 and 2002, when hostilities
ended, an additional 3.3 million persons were forced
to flee their homes (Watchlist 2002).
Infrastructure deterioration is particularly
significant, due to a loss of investment as well as a
reduced ability to maintain these structures. This has
implications for health, communications, education
and overall well-being. More than 50 per cent of
Luanda’s population, and most that live in the
musseques, do not have access to piped water (Cain
2004). The peri-urban and musseque population is
forced to pay for water pumped from the Bengo River
and distributed by informal sellers. Incredibly, the
poor in Luanda pay up to 10 000 times more per litre
for water than do the wealthier inhabitants who live in
formal settlements (Cain 2004).
The population of Maputo, the capital city of
Mozambique, has also suffered greatly as a result of
war. As in Angola, urbanization rates increased rapidly
because of the war, with, for example, rates of 40 per
cent in Maputo Province in 1991 (Baden 1997).
| Box 7: Impacts of war and peace |
|
Angola and Mozambique – who share a similar colonial
history and the same year of national independence –
are good examples of the influence of peace and
armed conflict on development and the standard of
living of the people.
Although both followed a similar process to peace in
1992, after more than two decades of armed conflict, only
Mozambique managed to sustain its peace process, and
effectively open up the democratic space for opposition
politics. It has been recording unprecedented economic
growth and development over the past 15 years of peace.
It grew on average at 6.7 per cent annually between 1993
and 1999 and by more than 10 per cent annually between
1997 and 1999. Although the devastating floods of early
2000, which slowed growth to a 2.1 per cent, Mozambique
achieved a full recovery, notching 14.8 per cent growth in
2001. The government projects the economy to continue
expanding between 7 and 10 per cent annually for the
5 years from 2004 to 2009 (US Department of State 2006b).
Angola, however, slid back into armed conflict after the
1992 peace agreement and subsequent parliamentary
elections failed to erase decades of suspicion and conflict
between the government and UNITA, the rebel movement.
The result was continued under-development despite the
abundance in crude oil, diamonds and other natural
resources. Poverty is extreme in Angola, for example, in
1999 alone, about 3.7 million people (Arvind and Vines
2004), including internally displaced persons, required
humanitarian assistance from the UN or NGOs. The
country ranks in the bottom 20 of almost every
socioeconomic indicator as a result of war. Despite
abundant natural resources, output per capita remains
among the world’s lowest (UNDP 2005). It has however
recently showed signs of improved growth directly related
to the establishment of peace, and an improved
investment climate. In 2004, it grew at 11.5 per cent,
however, inflation remains high (56.1 per cent) and savings
low (34 per cent) (ECA 2005).
|
|
Sources: Arvind and Vines 2004, ECA 2005, UNDP 2005, US Department of State 2006a, US Department of State 2006b
|
|