Protecting Animals Harmed By Human Conflict
Research has shown that human conflict is the number-one threat to wild animal populations, even more so than climate change. Beyond the harm caused to the animals themselves, such conflicts also devastate ecosystems. The effects multiply as animal and human populations migrate due to war, which can disrupt biodiversity. In fact, the authors of this paper claim that around 80% of today’s conflicts occur in “biodiversity hotspots.”
It’s clear that people, animals, and the environment we share all suffer from human conflict. This report by the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) examines the many ways that human-caused conflict harms animals. The authors discuss the consequences of conflict for companion and wild animals, animals used for food, and animals kept in zoos.
The report emphasizes the interconnectedness of people and animals. The authors begin by arguing that in emergencies, human needs must be addressed first, but that helping animals does not take away from helping people. In other words, we have the capacity to assist both people and animals at the same time.
They go on to argue that when humans are the cause of conflict, we have a responsibility to protect animals and habitats that are harmed as a consequence — even when the harms are unintended. Human conflict does not impact humans alone.
In times of disaster, conflicts may make it impossible for local farmers to continue raising farmed animals, or their animals may die or get stolen by opposition groups. Likewise, many people are forced to flee without their companions, or they cannot afford to care for them anymore. Policies and relief efforts to keep human and nonhuman family members together are important. Furthermore, providing emergency funding to animal shelters can prevent stray populations from going unchecked.
The illegal wild animal trade — estimated at $23 billion each year — is compounded by human conflict. The disruption to society during and after a conflict leads to economic instability, combined with a lower capacity to enforce conservation laws. As a result, the authors note that poaching tends to increase in conflict situations. Elephants in Africa are especially prone to poaching in conflict zones. Meanwhile, animals housed in zoos and other enclosures may be abandoned or left vulnerable to attacks when caretakers are killed or flee.
The report also looks at the ways conflict negatively impacts biodiversity. Destruction of habitats can happen in war zones, or when people are displaced and move into natural areas. Walls, fences, and other barriers erected to separate conflicting areas prevent not only the movement of refugees but also the migration of animals. Land mines are another aspect of conflict that injure or kill people and animals, even after conflict ends.
The authors argue that ultimately conflict has to end to address the problem. For example, by the end of the civil war in Mozambique in 1992, more than 90% of the animals in Gorongosa National Park were killed. Today, animal populations in the park exceed pre-war levels. This shows what can be achieved when conflict ends and the government and other groups prioritize the needs of animals and people.
But even when there’s no end in sight, there are still things we can do to minimize harm during conflict. For example, domestic animals should be included in disaster planning efforts, and funding and resources should be given to allow domestic animals to be transported safely with their human families. Occupying forces should be required under international law to provide care for animals in the area, and cruelty against animals should be punished as a war crime. Finally, anti-poaching and environmental conservation laws should be strengthened to account for armed conflict situations.
https://www.ifaw.org/resources/animals-people-war