How do armed violence and small arms and light weapons (SALW) possession and usage impoverish individuals, groups, societies and states? This study by the Centre for International Cooperation and Security, Bradford Unversity, addresses this question to advance understanding and knowledge of this area and inform programme design and evaluation.
The study synthesises the findings of 13 case studies of countries and cities with histories of entrenched violence. These show that direct links between SALW usage/possession and poverty are diffuse and difficult to disaggregate; many of the impacts are indirect. The term ‘armed violence situations’ is thus employed; this embraces more than simply the availability of arms and violent acts carried out by SALW, to include the whole situation in which armed violence is persistent and endemic, thus allowing investigation of the impact of a climate of insecurity and adapted business and livelihood patterns based on violence.
The case studies both confirmed and in some cases, challenged existing views of the impact of armed violence on poverty. Different circumstances of armed violence have different impacts on poverty and development. Some of the key findings are:
- Armed violence has had almost entirely negative impacts in terms of displacement, damage to health, education and agriculture, and has impoverished large sections of communities and populations.
- Gross domestic product during armed conflict declined in almost all the case studies countries.
- Acceptance of violence as a legitimate way to settle differences leaves communities impoverished and unable to defend themselves. Violence produces cycles of insecurity that are difficult to reverse.
- Armed violence disrupts traditional conflict management mechanisms, and tends to erode traditional justice systems as community leaders are targeted.
- However, armed violence can create opportunities for social and institutional change by, for example, creating new livelihood opportunities, or exposing people to NGO views of entitlement and rights.
Some civilians need SALW for livelihood and protection purposes. In its recommendations section, the report argues that programming to address armed violence has not been sufficiently connected with mainstream developmental programming. Neither has it connected with Security Sector Reform, which is critical for re-establishing state legitimacy. In addition, it recommends that:
- Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration programming could more rigorously target the causes of armed violence, gun cultures and community security, and build on some of the socio-economic changes that armed violence initiates.
- Links between development programming (that addresses the root causes of armed violence including poverty) and SALW programming (focused on managing weapons) should be built.
- Alternative livelihoods should be provided to people most likely to revert to armed violence and illegal activities. Building confidence between ex-combatants and civilians can contribute to avoiding future alienation and criminalisation of ex-combatants.
- Community security should be prioritised, such as introducing weapons-free zones and traditional mediation mechanisms. Social and cultural measures to challenge ‘gun cultures’ can build stability.
- Assistance strategies for vulnerable groups (children, women and displaced people) can help to reduce the impacts of armed violence.
