Summary
For the first
time, IANSA, Oxfam, and Safeworld have estimated the economic cost of
armed conflict to Africa’s development. Around $300bn since 1990 has
been lost by Algeria, Angola, Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad,
Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Republic of Congo, Côte d’Ivoire,
Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia,
Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sudan and
Uganda.
This sum is equivalent to international aid from
major donors in the same period. If this money was not lost due to
armed conflict, it could solve the problems of HIV and AIDS in Africa,
or it could address Africa’s needs in education, clean water and
sanitation, and prevent tuberculosis and malaria.
Our
research estimates that Africa loses around $18bn per year due to wars,
civil wars, and insurgencies. On average, armed conflict shrinks an
African nation’s economy by 15 per cent, and this is probably a
conservative estimate. The real costs of armed violence to Africans
could be much, much higher.
The costs are incurred in a
huge variety of ways. There are the obvious direct costs of armed
violence – medical costs, military expenditure, the destruction of
infrastructure, and the care for displaced people – which divert money
from more productive uses. The indirect costs from lost opportunities
are even higher. Economic activity falters or grinds to a halt. Income
from valuable natural resources ends up lining individual pockets
rather than benefiting the country. The country suffers from inflation,
debt, and reduced investment, while people suffer from unemployment,
lack of public services, and trauma. More people, especially women and
children, die from the fall-out of conflict than die in conflict itself.
The research carried out for this report has estimated that the cost of
armed conflict to Africa’s development has been a shocking $284bn since
1990. Although high, this is almost certainly an under-estimate. For a
start, this calculation only covers the cost of armed conflict, not
armed crime. Further, our calculation only covers periods of actual
combat but some costs of war, such as increased military spending and a
struggling economy, continue long after the fighting has stopped.
Neighbouring countries also suffer economically, due to reduced trade,
political insecurity, or an influx of refugees.
The
evidence also suggests that at least 95 per cent of Africa’s most
commonly used conflict weapons come from outside the continent. The
most common weapon is the Kalashnikov assault rifle, the most
well-known type being the AK-47, almost none of which are made in
Africa.
A steady supply of ammunition is required to keep
arms deadly, but little military ammunition is manufactured in Africa.
Although it is impossible to demonstrate precisely, our research
suggests that the vast majority of ammunition has to be imported from
outside Africa.
If armed violence is this costly and most
of the weapons come from outside Africa, then Africa desperately needs
to stop the flow of arms to those who abuse human rights and ignore the
rules of war. As well as looking at the demand for weapons, strong
initiatives must be taken to restrict supply. Many African nations,
recognising the threat to their development from irresponsible arms
transfers, have already made significant efforts towards arms control.
However, many African governments feel let down by the international
community. They know that the arms trade is globalised, and that
national or regional regulations, although absolutely vital, are not
enough.
Africa, as elsewhere, needs new international
standards on arms transfers – a strong and effective Arms Trade Treaty
(ATT). Such a treaty would not prevent the responsible transfer of
weapons for defence, policing, peacekeeping, and other legitimate
purposes, but it must prohibit arms transfers if they are likely to be
used to:
• Commit serious violations of international humanitarian law;
• Commit serious violations of international human rights law;
• Undermine sustainable development.
Although the causes of armed violence are many and highly complex, and
require a variety of actions to be taken, we believe that an ATT based
on these principles would be one important tool in reducing armed
violence in Africa.
At the moment, there are international
negotiations working towards such a treaty. So far, African support for
an ATT has been crucial to its success. Negotiations in the United
Nations are reaching a critical stage. It is vital for governments, in
Africa and around the world, to support these negotiations and demand a
strong result.
There is an urgent need to reduce the
international supply of arms and ammunition to Africa. Otherwise the
cost to African development – measured not just in dollars wasted but
in lives shattered and opportunities squandered – will remain immense.
Date of publication: October 2007
Full report