Loss of lives, unemployment and large-scale displacement as a result of armed violence are increasing. The link between armed violence and poverty is clear.  But, how can poverty reduction and armed conflict reduction programmes be integrated?

A study from the University of Bradford, UK, examines how using and possessing small arms and light weapons affects poverty levels of individuals and states in various armed violence situations. The research looks at cases where conflict has led to large numbers of displaced people, either internally or as refugees. In almost all situations this has meant a loss of assets that threaten lives in the immediate situation, and livelihoods in the long-term. Disruption, destruction and insecurity have combined to result in famine, malnourishment and the spread of HIV and AIDS, making it virtually impossible to achieve the name="OLE_LINK1"Millennium Development Goals in some of the countries studied.

In post-conflict countries such as Somalia, Sierra Leone and Algeria, links have been developed between poverty reduction programmes, peace initiatives and programmes for managing weapons. But in areas of continuing conflict, such as Nepal, north-east India and northern Kenya, development programmes and disarmament activities are poorly connected. In situations of violent criminality such as El Salvador and Brazil, there is no attention on social exclusion and violence as barriers to alternative livelihoods.

The report also finds:

• The wider the spread of weapons, the more difficult it is to disarm and more likely that new armed violence will emerge.
• Where the state continues to provide basic services, poverty levels are less likely to be made worse by armed violence.
• Programmes succeed when peace-building and humanitarian support is provided at all stages of armed violence, rather than separating them into ‘in-conflict’ and ‘post-conflict’ assistance.
• When violence is confined to one region, for example in Sri Lanka where fighting was mostly in the north, the overall impact on the economy is likely to be contained.
• Poverty is made worse where violence becomes central to an economy, as in the case of drug trafficking in Colombia and Afghanistan.

The lives of poor people in conflict situations can be improved by taking account of the ways that armed violence slows down development and leads people further into poverty.

Donors and governments should:

• improve coordination between programmes that address the causes of armed violence, including poverty reduction activities, and programmes that deal directly with weapons reduction
• identify the economic effects of armed violence: positive features, such as new trading links should be supported and damaging ones such as corruption should be contained
• promote and provide alternative livelihood options as well as building relationships between ex-fighters and civilians
• make security a priority by introducing weapons-free zones and using traditional conflict-resolution mechanisms where appropriate
• reduce the effects of armed violence while it is occurring through assistance to vulnerable groups such as children and displaced people.

Source(s):
‘The impact of armed violence on poverty and development’, University of Bradford, by Mandy Turner, Jeremy Ginifer and Lionel Cliffe, March 2005 (PDF) Full document.

Funded by: UK Department for International Development

id21 Research Highlight: 13 September 2006

Further Information:
Jeremy Ginifer
Centre for International Cooperation and Security (CICS)
Department of Peace Studies
University of Bradford
Bradford
West Yorkshire
BD7 1DP, UK

Tel: +44 (0)1274 235161
Fax: +44(0)1274 235296
Contact the contributor: j.ginifer@bradford.ac.uk