The ‘green militarisation’ of development aid: the European Commission and the Virunga National Park, DR Congo

Abstract

To 'save' the Virunga National Park, located in the east of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the European Commission (EC) allocates development aid to the paramilitary training of the park guards, their salaries, and mixed patrols of the guards together with the Congolese army. Moreover, the 'development' projects the EC supports around the park have militarising effects as they are based on a soft counter-insurgency approach to conservation and to address dynamics of violent conflict. This amounts to the 'green militarisation' of development aid. This article describes how a personalised network of policymakers within the EC renders militarised conservation-related violence and controversy around the Virunga park invisible, by framing contestations and violence in and around the park as solely caused by economic factors and motivations. Moreover, by 'hiding' the fact that the EC aid is used to fund armed conservation practices, policymakers circumvent political debate about the use of development funds for (para)military expenditures. While the existing literature focuses on the importance of securitised discourses to explain the militarisation of conservation, this article indicates that in addition, it is important to focus on these more mundane practices of securitisation within international organisations that ultimately fund the militarisation of conservation.

Why we must question the militarisation of conservation

“…Militarised approaches to conservation appear to be expanding, becoming institutionalised and normalised in a growing number of places and amongst particular conservation non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and donors ( Duffy, 2016 ; Marijnen, 2017 ; Büscher and Fletcher, 2018 ). Part of the reason for a shift towards militarised conservation is that some conservationists feel pressure to act urgently to prevent extinctions.…”

Network analysis of a stakeholder community combatting illegal wildlife trade

“…). Examining what Marijnen () dubs the “mundane,” less glamorous aspects of CWT communities’ policies and practices, like a communications audit, could have profound effects on outcomes, for example, identifying missed opportunities to collaborate or stopping multiple organizations from inefficiently seizing the same opportunity.…”

“…If centrally important stakeholders do not communicate with a diverse array of organizations, it is reasonable to suggest that their practices, resources, and ideas may be pigeonholed. Marijnen (2017) underscores the hazard with her example of the European Commission desk worker who held the same position, procuring funding and knowledge on biodiversity in Central Africa, including Virunga National Park, for several decades. Having such tenure in such a central position, this person essentially had a "thought monopoly" over resources and information on the region, especially because there was normally staff turnover at least once in a decade (Marijnen 2017).…”

Linking green militarization and critical military studies

“…Such engagement is increasingly translating into green militarization or Òthe use of military and paramilitary personnel, training, technologies, and partnerships in the pursuit of conservation effortsÓ (Lunstrum 2014, 814). This is a trend we see across parts of Africa (Duffy 2014(Duffy , 2016Dunlap and Fairhead 2014;Marijnen 2017;Marijnen and Verweijen 2016;MassŽ and Lunstrum 2016;Verweijen and Marijnen 2016) and Asia (Barbora 2017), with military builup also unfolding in protected areas in Latin America (Devine 2014;Ojeda 2012;Ybarra 2012). 4 Indeed, there has been a long history of military involvement in conservation (Devine 2014;Ellis 1994;Lunstrum 2015a;Spence 1999;Wels 2015).…”