June 2023 REPORT CAUSES OF FARMER– HERDER CONFLICTS IN AFRICA A systematic scoping review Magda Nassef, Bedasa Eba, Kishmala Islam, Georges Djohy and Fiona Flintan Acknowledgements The authors thank the reviewers of this report: Theresa Liebig (Alliance Biodiversity and International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT)), Bia Carneiro (Alliance Bioversity-CIAT), Jeremy Lind (Institute of Development Studies (IDS), University of Sussex), Michael Odhiambo (independent consultant) and Mauri Vazquez (ODI). This report was produced with a contribution from the CGIAR Research Initiatives on Livestock and Climate, and Fragility, Conflict and Migration, which are supported by contributors to the CGIAR Trust Fund. About SPARC Climate change, armed conflict, environmental fragility and weak governance and the impact these have on natural resource- based livelihoods are among the key drivers of both crisis and poverty for communities in some of the world’s most vulnerable and conflict-affected countries. Supporting Pastoralism and Agriculture in Recurrent and Protracted Crises (SPARC) aims to generate evidence and address knowledge gaps to build the resilience of millions of pastoralists, agro-pastoralists and farmers in these communities in sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East. We strive to create impact by using research and evidence to develop knowledge that improves how the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), donors, non- governmental organisations, local and national governments, and civil society can empower these communities in the context of climate change. TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements 2 Executive summary 4 1. Background 5 2. Methodology 9 3. Overall trends 17 4. Causes of conflict 24 5. Conclusion and recommendations 34 References 36 Annex 1: Studies included in the review 39 Annex 2: Protocol for the scoping review 43 Annex 3: Full list of keywords used in analysis 44 sparc-knowledge.org 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Conflict between farmers and livestock herders in Africa has received much attention in recent years, with attendant concerns about increasing and intensifying levels of conflict. This systematic scoping review was based on an approach designed to minimise selection bias using transparent and reproducible methods. The aim was to gain insights into the causes of farmer–herder conflict and uncover any trends and potential gaps in understanding. A second aim was to ascertain to what degree conflict is connected to land and natural resources and to what extent land tenure insecurity is cited as a cause of conflict and how this is discussed. A third aim was to understand to what degree and in what capacity women and youth are mentioned in research on farmer–herder conflict. The review followed a systematic scoping review approach. A search of academic research articles in English- and French-language Web of Science, Science Direct and think-tank libraries identified 88 relevant research articles and papers. These 88 papers were selected from a long list of 1,102 articles, suggesting that, although interest in farmer–herder conflicts is significant, primary research on the causes of conflicts is scarce. All case studies reviewed make a direct link between farmer–herder conflict and land or natural resources. Nearly all conclude that conflict is increasing or becoming increasingly violent, but only a few present primary evidence to support this claim. Regarding categories of causes, most studies emphasise governance, political and social factors rather than resource scarcity or climate change. These factors include weak or exclusive governance, land issues, poor relationships between groups and ethnic bias. Those are followed by (perceived) pastoral mismanagement, environmental scarcity, violence and human insecurity. Climate change, while a topic of global interest, does not feature as one of the top causes of conflict. While land issues are given prominence, land tenure insecurity is identified tangentially and more through its impacts, such as blocked or limited access to land and natural resources and tenure disputes. The identification of tenure insecurity itself (i.e., the reason this may be happening) is scarce and mentioned in only 13% of cases. This suggests that the analysis of farmer–herder conflicts fails to go to the root causes and focuses instead on what is seen or can be easily quantified and explained. A deeper investigation into the relationship between land tenure, insecurity and conflict is recommended. Women are mentioned in relation to conflict in only 28% of the studies, primarily as victims and less frequently as instigators of conflict or peacemakers. Young people are more frequently mentioned, in 43% of the studies, and primarily as participants in conflict. Youth is not differentiated by sex in these studies, but everything suggests that male youth is being discussed. The findings from this scoping review suggest that more primary research on farmer–herder conflicts is required, and the breaking down of what are normally grouped as ‘causes’ into influencing forces, triggers, sparks and root causes of different depths. In addition, the explicit role of tenure insecurity in farmer–herder conflict, and the role of women and youth in these conflicts, and the impacts on them, needs more attention. 4 SPARC Causes of farmer–herder conflicts in Africa 1. BACKGROUND Farmer–herder conflicts are in the spotlight in Africa Farmer–herder1 conflicts in Africa have received heightened attention in recent years in the media, academic circles and policy-making contexts, with attendant concerns about increasing and intensifying levels of conflict between groups (Flintan et al., 2021). Farmer–herder conflicts are mostly local, sporadic and low intensity, without direct involvement of governments and government security forces. In the public domain, the media and international organisations have described farmer–herder conflicts using strong, sometimes alarmist language, giving the issue a heightened sense of urgency. The African Union Commissioner for Peace and Security stated that ‘conflicts between herders and farmers on the continent take more lives than terrorism’ (AU, 2018),2 while a 2021 news article in The Guardian reported ‘violence linked to conflicts between farmers and herders across west and central Africa has led to more than 15,000 deaths … half of those have occurred since 2018, most of them in Nigeria, which has created the country’s deadliest security crisis’ (Akinwotu, 2021). In addition, literature in the public domain often imbues the topic with inflammatory language. For example, using unhelpful labelling of particular groups. The Fulani, the largest pastoralist group in West Africa (UNOWAS, 2018), are often labelled as ‘strangers’ or ‘aliens’ or as a general public danger. Often, this group is conflated with known terrorist organisations. The Global Terrorism Index for 2015 claims that Nigeria is home to ‘two of the five most deadly terrorist groups in 2014; Boko Haram and Fulani militants’ using a catch-all term to describe the Fulani. It goes on to mention that ‘unlike Boko Haram who are now affiliated with ISIL and aligned with the establishment of a caliphate, the Fulani militants have very localised goals, mainly greater access to grazing lands for livestock’ (IEP, 2015). © Marco Buemi/ILRI 1 The authors acknowledge that a distinct dichotomy between the livelihood groups is outdated. In reality, there is a lot of overlap, with farmers increasingly rearing livestock and pastoralists increasingly taking up farming. However, each of these groups continues to maintain a specialisation in one of the two livelihood systems. The term ‘farmer–herder’ is used here for ease of reference. 2 While this quotation appeared first in an African Union press release describing the conference in which the statement was first made, the quotation has since been used in a UN peacekeeping mission report (UN, 2020). sparc-knowledge.org 5 There appears to be no consistent narrative in the media on the causes of farmer–herder conflict and a lack of robust evidence. A wide range of causes is given, sometimes within the same publication, resulting in a complex and often confused picture. Often, it is the herders and their practices that are blamed, for example, for: ƒ deliberate destruction of crops by pastoralists and cattle rustling by bandits (The Sun, 2022) ƒ destruction of farmland and the terrorising of farmers by non-resident herders who invade the area illegally (Boateng, 2022) ƒ climate-induced scarcity and related migration as well as crop destruction and encroachment on transhumance corridors, using language such as ‘climate wars’ and transhumance bringing pastoralists into ‘collision’ with farming communities (Chime, 2021). In international forums herders and their practices can also be blamed ,among the main causes. At a conference on the ‘Impact of cross-border transhumance on sustainable peace and development in West Africa and the Sahel’ (UN, 2019), Mariam Aboubakrine, a member of the United Nations (UN) Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, referred to transhumance as a spark in herder–farmer clashes. Elsewhere (UNOWAS, 2018), it is said that, while conflict plays out around competition over land and natural resources, the main issue is how natural resources are allocated and managed. The sheer volume of causes saturating the public domain creates a free-for-all interpretation with ample scope for cherry-picking among policy- and decision-makers, as well as groups with potentially vested interests. Causes can easily be selected and tailored to justify particular actions or interventions, such as: ƒ passing grazing bans to restrict the ‘indiscriminate grazing’ of pastoralists (Olufemi, 2021) ƒ using degradation narratives to ‘legitimize and pave the way for agricultural investments and environmental conservation under a “green economy”’ (Bergius et al., 2020) ƒ using scarcity narratives and the different interpretations of this narrative to justify decisions taken in terms of using ‘underutilised’ resources (Mehta et al., 2019; Scoones et al., 2019) ƒ ‘securitising’ and politicising climate change by linking climate-change-driven migration with violence and insecurity (Benjaminsen and Ba, 2021; Wiederkehr et al., 2022), when the empirical evidence supporting this link remains inconclusive and research on the topic scarce (ibid) ƒ finally, and perhaps most dangerously, extremist groups and politicians using and manipulating farmer–herder grievances to further specific ends (Bøås et al., 2020; Cline, 2020; Ugwueze et al., 2022). While an increase in farmer–herder conflict and the increasing violence of the conflict is often treated as a given in the media and the policy domains, some studies critically question whether there is an increase or intensification in farmer–herder conflicts, or whether the increased violence observed in parts of Africa is linked to conflict between farmers and herders in the first place (Hussein et al., 1999; Krätli and Toulmin, 2020). While the question of whether farmer–herder conflict or the intensity of this conflict is increasing is not the subject of this review, this contentious debate shows that the issue is a topic of intense interest. 6 SPARC Causes of farmer–herder conflicts in Africa A review of academic and think-tank literature Because of this heightened yet often confused attention, and to guide future SPARC research, this systematic scoping review aims to explore academic and think-tank literature3 on the causes of farmer–herder conflicts, eliciting trends and potential gaps in understanding. It also aims to ascertain to what degree conflict is connected to land and natural resources, assuming that land and natural resources play a central role. It aims to identify to what extent land tenure insecurity is cited as a cause of conflict and how this subject is discussed, acknowledging that the relationship between land tenure and conflict is complex and that further research on this relationship is likely needed (Flintan et al., 2021; Osman, 2012). The logic for including land tenure insecurity is the argument that tenure insecurity causes land (or land access) to be lost to competing uses, accelerated by pressure on land resources. As grazing spaces decrease and spaces for smallholder farmers increase, the competition for resources critical for both livelihoods increases. With increased competition, there are increased chances of this competition becoming violent, suggesting tenure insecurity as a root cause of conflict (Flintan et al., 2021; de Jode and Flintan, 2020; Osman, 2012; Sulieman, 2015). This review asks: ƒ What are the causes of farmer–herder conflict? ƒ Does land feature and to what extent? ƒ Is tenure insecurity part of the discussion, and if so, how? Given that the links between women and conflict, as well as youth and conflict, have been highlighted as gaps in the existing research (Caroli et al., 2022), this scoping review also aims to explore to what extent both groups have been mentioned in case studies on farmer– herder conflict. While there have been recent literature reviews on related topics, few focus specifically on the causes of farmer–herder conflict or do not follow a systematic review methodology. One study focuses on analysing specific incidents of conflict from across 16 countries using the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project database and queries whether violence in Africa can be attributed to farmer–herder conflicts as many reports suggest, while also exploring how the causes of conflict are, or could be, framed (Krätli and Toulmin, 2020). Three others explore the sources of violence and instability affecting pastoralists and other rural land users and the causes of land conflicts, using a general literature review or comparative case study approach (Brottem and McDonnell, 2020; Ntumva, 2022; Seter et al., 2018, respectively). Another review assesses the causes and drivers of conflicts involving pastoralists and is based on interviews with stakeholders in six African countries (UNOWAS, 2018). While these are extensive reviews, none apply a systematic review approach. Two systematic reviews have been identified. One focuses on conflict linked to land-use change more broadly (de Jong et al., 2022), and the other explores the links between climate change and violent conflict in West Africa (Tarif, 2022) but does not focus specifically on farmer–herder conflicts. 3 Think-tank literature helped the review team capture more recent perspectives outside peer-reviewed journals. sparc-knowledge.org 7 8 SPARC Causes of farmer–herder conflicts in Africa © Stevie Mann / ILRI 2. METHODOLOGY A systematic scoping review Systematic reviews aim to identify, evaluate and summarise the findings of all relevant individual studies, thereby making the available evidence more accessible to decision- makers. What makes a normal review different to a systematic review is that systematic reviews adhere to a strict scientific design based on explicit, pre-specified and reproducible methods. They use explicit, systematic methods that are selected with a view to minimizing bias, thus providing more reliable findings from which conclusions can be drawn and decisions made (CRD, 2009, Cochrane Handbook updated 2022). As well as setting out what we know about a particular intervention, systematic reviews can also demonstrate where knowledge is lacking. This can then be used to guide future research (CRD, 2009). Also see Higgins et al., (2022) and Aromataris and Riitano (2014). Systematic scoping reviews are commonly used ‘for reconnaissance to clarify working definitions and conceptual boundaries of a topic or field. Scoping reviews are, therefore particularly useful when a body of literature has not yet been comprehensively reviewed or exhibits a complex or heterogeneous nature not amenable to a more precise systematic review of the evidence. While scoping reviews may be conducted to determine the value and probable scope of a full systematic review, they may also be undertaken as exercises in and of themselves to summarise and disseminate research findings, to identify research gaps, and make recommendations for future research’ (Peters et al., 2015). The methodology developed by Peters et al. (2015) of the Joanna Briggs Institute was followed in this review. To ensure rigour, the design of the review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis, or PRISMA, format (Page et al., 2021) and used the PRISMA 2020 checklist available online.4 Additionally, a protocol was developed at the outset of this review. The protocol is considered a clarification and guidance document to ensure a common understanding among the review team from the outset. The protocol is provided in Annex 2. The review was conducted first in English and then in French to ensure that more studies were included. Once conducted, the results were combined (Figure 1). Databases searched and search parameters Review of English-language literature The review team canvassed contacts within their research community networks to elicit feedback on the most relevant databases for this review. Web of Science, Science Direct, Scopus and CAB Direct were identified. It was decided to focus on Web of Science and Science Direct, knowing them to be respected databases and given existing institutional permissions. 4 The checklist can be accesed at: www.prisma-statement.org sparc-knowledge.org 9 The Boolean search string (farmer OR smallholder OR settler) AND (pastoralist OR herder OR nomad) AND conflict AND (Africa OR Sahel) was used to query the databases. The term ‘conflict’ was used to avoid limiting what the search results reveal, recognising that the term can include an array of meanings. The definition most useful for this review is ‘any situation in which two or more parties perceive that they possess mutually incompatible goals’ (Mitchell, 1981).5 The review team also avoided use of the terms ‘land’ or ‘natural resources’ in the search string, as the interest was to see whether and to what extent the issues of land and natural resources came up in a more general search on causes of conflict. The terms ‘farmers’ and ‘herders’ were expanded to encompass some common, similar descriptions, i.e., ‘small’ and ‘settler’ for farmer, and ‘pastoralist’ and ‘nomad’ for herder, as this is how such groups are most commonly described in the conflict literature. The reviewers explored literature covering the entire continent, with specific mention of the Sahel region, given that it is often mentioned without reference to Africa. This was to avoid unintentionally being driven towards a narrower set of conclusions that may be linked to a particular region’s history, geography, or social and political contexts. Truncated search words and wildcards were not used, nor were long search strings (for example, spelling out every country in Africa instead of simply using the words ‘Africa OR Sahel’) given search string limitations in Science Direct. The time range was set from 2000 to the present following the time range used in the SPARC scoping review of pastoral land tenure and governance (Flintan et al., 2021). The rationale for the timeframe is supported by the observed increase in coverage of the topic, while a relative increase in terms of research and documentation on pastoralists and rangelands has also been observed starting around the year 2000 (Johnsen et al., 2019). A search of English-language literature was conducted in Science Direct and Web of Science on 30 April 2022. Due to the large number of search results (over 3,000 results in Science Direct), additional limiting parameters were introduced, including journals clearly irrelevant to the topic (for example, veterinary journals) and limiting the search results to research articles, which excluded items such as books, book reviews and editorials. The final search yielded 109 journal articles in Web of Science and 862 journal articles in Science Direct. To complement the database search, a search was conducted in Google on 8 May 2022 for the same search string, and the first eight international think tanks listed6 producing research reports on the subject were included. A follow-on search was then done for specific publications through the think tanks’ respective websites using the same search string. At the same time, for some (Empirical Studies of Conflict, International Crisis Group, African Center for Strategic Studies and Clingendael), the search string was slightly adapted to (‘farmer–herder conflict’ AND ‘farmer–pastoralist conflict’) as the longer search string was not accommodated by these websites. Seventeen think-tank documents were included based on the above search. 5 This can cover competing interests between the state and local smallholders with regard to land allocation and use, disputes or tensions between groups, transgressions on property and people (for example cattle stealing, farm raiding, beatings and the killing of humans or livestock), as well as large-scale violence where many people and livestock may lose their lives. 6 South African Institute of International Affairs, Empirical Studies of Conflict, International Crisis Group, International Institute for Environment and Development, Search for Common Ground, African Center for Strategic Studies, Kofi Anan International Peacekeeping Center and Clingendael. 10 SPARC Causes of farmer–herder conflicts in Africa The complete results of 971 journal articles and 17 think-tank papers were migrated into Mendeley, and 18 duplicate articles were removed. Then titles and abstracts were screened for inclusion or exclusion in the review with the primary criteria for inclusion being that the research article focuses specifically on a case (or cases) of farmer– herder conflict, or that the study has conducted primary research (either quantitative, qualitative, or both) on the topic, or had at least included questions in local interviews and discussions on causes of farmer–herder conflict or had captured responses from © Rasmane Bagagnan / ILRI interviewees on causes of conflict.7 Using the above criteria, the primary reviewer and one other reviewer narrowed down the long list independently, based on reading titles and abstracts. The two reviewers combined their individual results, and duplicates in the combined list were removed. A third reviewer was brought in to provide guidance on a few discrepancies and then to review the full shortlist with the primary reviewer once again. As a result of this process, 900 publications were excluded as being outside the criteria for this review. Of the remaining 70 documents, 64 were obtained in full text, while four full texts could not be accessed. Of these 64 documents, 28 articles were excluded after reading the abstract, discussion, conclusion and methodology. The primary reviewer undertook this second screening, and a second reviewer double-checked this process. This process yielded 38 studies for the review made up of 21 journal articles and 17 think-tank documents in English. Review of French-language literature The search of the French literature was undertaken on 4 November 2022 by a native French speaker (different from the English reviewer). The following French-language Boolean search string (agriculteur OR petit exploitant OR colon agricole) AND (pasteur OR éleveur OR nomade) AND conflit AND (Afrique OR Sahel) was used to collect 84 and 47 publications from Web of Science and Science Direct respectively, covering the period 2000–2022. A preliminary check by title and abstract resulted in the inclusion of 20 Web of Science journal articles and 5 Science Direct journal articles, totalling 25 articles. This preliminary list of articles was subjected to an advanced screening that resulted in the removal of seven articles from the Web of Science list, of which two were duplicates, two were inaccessible, and three did not focus on farmer–herder conflicts but dealt with goat rearing or the implication of agribusiness development on the agrarian system and water management. Three articles from the Science Direct list were excluded, one a duplicate in the Web of Science list and two others dealing with the prehistoric and historical anthropology of the shepherd’s crook in Brazil and Europe without a focus on farmer–herder conflicts. After this, 15 journal articles were retained. 7 The criteria for think-tank documents were not as stringent and some reviews were also included. The rationale is that the think-tank documents are considered supporting documents for comparison with the research articles. This means that the 17 think-tank results were retained. sparc-knowledge.org 11 To expand this list, a direct search on Google using the same search string was undertaken on 15 and 16 January 2023 and resulted in 24 additional journal articles, of which 16 were finally retained after import and screening in Mendeley. Thus, the number of French-language journal articles considered in this review was 31. Beyond the journal articles, the same Boolean search string on Google was used to identify 8 publications by think tanks, whose websites were then visited to collect 20 additional articles, making 28 think-tank publications. Advanced screening of these identified 10 of the 28 as relevant to the review. An additional search for think-tank publications identified 9 additional documents, bringing the total considered for the review to 19. In total, 50 publications were identified from the French literature about farmer–herder conflicts, including 31 journal articles and 19 think-tank papers (Table 1). TABLE 1: TOTAL PUBLICATIONS USED IN THE REVIEW Literature Journal articles Think tank Total English language 21 17 38 French language 31 19 50 Total 52 36 88 The list of included papers is found in Annex 1.8 Limitations with the process Several limitations are acknowledged: ƒ The overall number of journal articles and papers is relatively small, so trends identified can be taken only as an indication and not as robust results. ƒ A search across a wider set of databases may have yielded a larger set of results, improving diversity and robustness.9 However, the findings of this review agree, in the main, with findings from similar reviews mentioned above,10 indicating that a good proportion of the studies on farmer–herder conflict may have been captured. Additionally, Seter et al. (2018) note that there are surprisingly few robust primary studies on violent farmer–herder conflict, or herder–herder conflict for that matter, which may further corroborate the small sample size. ƒ The review did not include grey literature, institutional reports (e.g., from the World Bank) or material obtained through snowballing, due to limited time and resources as well as a preference for studies based on primary research. 8 After combining the French and English literature and completing the analysis it was noted that two papers were included in both the French and English literature results. Given that it was late in the process to remove and re-do the analysis and given that the small number would unlikely make any significant change to the results, the two duplicates were left and included in the review. 9 The latter acknowledging that different databases have both strengths and weaknesses (see, for example, Stahlschmidt and Stephen (2020) for a comparison of selected databases), and a search across a variety of databases would serve to minimise the effects of the weaknesses. 10 For example, Brottem and McDonnell (2020), who reviewed over 300 publications in English and in French. 12 SPARC Causes of farmer–herder conflicts in Africa The content of published research in peer-reviewed journals, even if recently published, will be a few years older given academia’s lengthy procedures within their publication pipelines. Hence the inclusion of think-tank literature, which tends to have a quicker turnaround. The review of French literature took a slightly different approach by including a Google search for additional articles. Additionally, the English and French reviews were undertaken by different people so interpretations could differ. However, including both was considered more valuable than presenting them separately. FIGURE 1: PRISMA FLOW DIAGRAM Identification of studies via Identification of studies via databases and registers other methods Records identified from: Web of Science English (n=109) French (n=84) Records removed Science Direct before screening: Records identified from: Duplicate records Think-tank English (n=17) English (n=862) French (n=47) removed (n=21) Think-tank French (n=37) Google search French (n=24) Records screened Records excluded English (n=953) English (n=900) French (n=152) French (n=103) Reports sought for retrieval Reports not retrieved Reports sought for retrieval English (n=53) English (n=4) English (n=17) Reports not retrieved French (n=49) French (n=2) French (n=37) (n=0) Reports assessed for eligibility Reports excluded Reports excluded Reports excluded English (n=49) English (n=28) English (n=28) English (n=0) French (n=47) French (n=16) French (n=16) French (n=18) Journal articles included in review: English (n=21) French (n=31) Think-tank studies included in the review: English (n=17) French (n=19) Total journal articles (n=52) Total think-tank papers (n=36) Total repots (n=88) sparc-knowledge.org 13 Included Screening Identification Case coding The following information was coded: (1) study location; (2) methods used; (3) mention of increasing frequency or intensity of conflict; (4) mention of links between conflict and land and natural resources; (5) mention of women; (6) mention of youth; and (7) causes of conflict. Study location: It was of interest to understand the geographical spread of the articles on farmer–herder conflict. Where these focused on more than one country, each country within the study was counted as a separate case. Where studies focused on a broad region without mention of countries (for example, Africa or the Sahel), these were counted in a separate category. Methodology: Methods used in the case study research were grouped into five main categories: (1) qualitative methods, including interviews, focus group discussions, field observations, informal discussions, workshops and any general mention of ‘case study’; (2) quantitative methods, including household surveys, administered questionnaires and spatial analysis; (3) mixed methods – combining both qualitative and quantitative approaches; (4) mixed methods plus remote sensing, mapping and combining qualitative and quantitative approaches with remote sensing and participatory mapping; (5) secondary sources, including reviews of literature and locally obtained documents (e.g., police records, court cases). All case study methods included an element of secondary data review; therefore, where secondary sources are mentioned, this means that the publication was a review.11 Indication of increased frequency or intensity of conflict: articles and papers that mention increased conflict or increased intensity of conflict. The purpose was to explore whether there are similar trends in published academic and think-tank literature compared to literature in the public domain. Indication of links between conflict and land or natural resources: These include articles and papers that make direct links between conflict and land or natural resources. Mention of women and of youth: articles and papers that mention women in relation to conflict. This includes mention of women only in direct relation to conflict and excludes mention of women in other ways (for example, in methodologies indicating disaggregation by sex). Mention of youth was treated in a similar fashion. Causes of conflict: Causes of conflict were grouped into categories12 and subcategories. Figure 2 presents the results. For each category, keywords or phrases were extracted from the review literature and worded in ways that indicate a cause (for example, weak governance instead of governance).13 As shown in the figure, these keywords or phrases were grouped under subcategories. Subcategories were created as common themes within the set of keywords or phrases. For example, where phrases such as ‘scarce resources’ or ‘scarcity of land’ appear, these were grouped under the subcategory ‘resource scarcity’. Where phrases such as ‘limited 11 This is the case for only one think-tank document. 12 The categories used were defined as causes most frequently observed in the literature, including in the abstracts during the inclusion and exclusion exercise, and based on a deep reading of one-third of the included English literature documents. 13 A full list of the keywords and phrases used is in Annex 3. 14 SPARC Causes of farmer–herder conflicts in Africa grazing resources’ or ‘shortage of water’ appear, these were grouped under the subcategory ‘limited resources’ (see Box 1 for notes on the definition and scope of each category). Having scoped the French literature, the French reviewer agreed that the categories and subcategories identified for the English language review were also suitable for the French language review. For analysis, a code of 1 was given to a phrase or keyword mentioned as a cause of conflict within the study. A code of 2 was given to a phrase or keyword that was mentioned in the study but not specifically as a cause, i.e., included only in the background, introduction, footnotes or references, or mentioned as a point for discussion. The primary author undertook a detailed analysis of one-third of the included English literature studies and checked keywords and phrases in context for the remainder. The reviewer of the French literature undertook an analysis of all the French literature studies. All the data analysis and data representation were done using MS Excel Office Pro. FIGURE 2: CATEGORIES AND SUBCATEGORIES OF CAUSES OF CONFLICT Re tio n so sa urc erni L e od i m sc it a ed rc s – m ias r i e t s y es s – b o u oc r Pr s – n De c g e Proces atio r s ad Proces alis on at erci sati E io n n vati viro comm pri -use nme and land nta E ive l s – n ects c vir clus eff han onm e Proces and ge e C n r ex ta nanc change l nce of orrup ti s ak o o y n car We c gover ss – abse ity Proce ntabilit accou Bribery – politicisation Process Groups with interests in Corrupti c o or n rupt CAUSES OF ginalisation practices Process – mar Concealment of stolen CONFLICT Process ds – e fun xclusion Broader violence oce unrelated to farmer– ce and Pr s ity s – inequa ist conflict l pastoral Violen ity insecur Pr human o ing ces i f – f Cattle raid d s e p r D e o n w ti e a r l e s ity terior insecur ating relat Human ion Br io e n erat a s k h olif d ip o s w s pr n y L o apon urit a f c tr We k u s o t nsec f re re i nu on A sp Te n e iati im ct o ropr sity Exp sparc-knowledge.org 15 Blocked or limited ac I c n e se s c s ure land righ T ts enure i M n is s m e an c ag u em r e i n t t y of land Crop destruction Overgrazing Pastoral mismanagement Too many livestock Poor and exclusive and pastrolists governance system n Poli migratio cy – gener Increase d al problems Polic a y g a – in b s ia t s c e e s rt a fo in r o g r P r o o u l p ic s y I – n p s l t u i r b t a u li t s P i m i o r a o s c e n d s e – s in s s e l t w – itu aiv k es c ti h o toc a n o k n s r s g e e c s t o in r the Fe ar nce s ieva ed gr res s hip s nad d ions ias U bias ela t ic b Ethn ic or r Po d et hn an e labe ls Nega tiv Historical grievance Historical gri evances th Colonisa tion grow Popu lation grow th e Popu lation han g te c ent Clim a Disp lace m ang e e ch f ns o Clim at pti o scr i ate r d e clim Othe BOX 1: A NOTE ON CATEGORIES AND SUBCATEGORIES Tenure insecurity includes legal, de facto and perceived tenure insecurity. Land or natural resource scarcity includes absolute scarcity, most often cited as caused by climate change or degradation, and structurally induced scarcity, for example, by excising land for other purposes.14 Poor or exclusive governance refers to weaknesses in systems mediating control of and access to resources associated with human action for decision-making, in addition to the processes that influence human action or result from it. Governance encompasses policies, institutions and processes as captured in the UK Department for International Development’s Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (DFID, 2000). The subcategory ‘weak or biased institutions’ refers to customary and statutory institutions. Pastoral mismanagement refers to when (normally external) actors perceive pastoralist actions as mismanagement of resources. Poor relationships and ethnic bias are seen as connected but do not always come together. There can be poor relationships without ethnic bias. Violence and human insecurity refers to broader violence, for example involving terrorist groups, arms proliferation, cattle raiding and the human insecurity resulting from these. Historical grievances indicate conflict attributed to roots in a country’s or a region’s past, linked to colonialism or the historical relationships between groups. 14 For more information on different types of scarcity see UNEP (2012). 16 SPARC Causes of farmer–herder conflicts in Africa 3. OVERALL TRENDS Date of publication The search of academic literature on farmer–herder conflict in Science Direct showed a marked increase in search results between 2000 and 2021 (Figure 3).15 This indicates that attention to farmer–herder conflicts has increased significantly over the last two decades. FIGURE 3: AN INCREASED FOCUS ON FARMER–HERDER CONFLICTS IN ENGLISH- LANGUAGE ACADEMIC LITERATURE 100 80 60 40 20 0 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 Note: the literature search was carried out in April 2022 so does not capture articles published in 2022 after April, hence the dip in the graph. 15 Using the search string (farmer OR smallholder OR settler) AND (pastoralist OR herder OR nomad) AND conflict AND (Africa OR Sahel), and limited to research articles and relevant journals (for example excluding veterinary journals). sparc-knowledge.org 17 No. of reports Methodology The majority of included articles and papers used qualitative methods for their research, while a minority used quantitative methods only. Among the journal articles, approximately one-third used a combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches, and a small percentage added a remote sensing or participatory mapping component alongside mixed methods (Figure 4). All studies included a review of secondary data alongside primary research methods. FIGURE 4: METHODOLOGY Think-tank n=6 n=12 n=2 n=16 Mixed methods + Qualitative Quantitative remote sensing / methods methods Mixed methods participatory Secondary data mapping n=29 n=7 n=8 n=7 n=1 Research paper Trends in farmer–herder conflicts FIGURE 5: NO. OF REPORTS MENTIONING AN INCREASE IN FARMER–HERDER CONFLICT 2 Conflict increasing or becoming increasingly violent? Yes 86 No mention 18 SPARC Causes of farmer–herder conflicts in Africa Mirroring literature in the public domain, 98% of reviewed studies mentioned that farmer– herder conflict is increasing in frequency or intensity, or both (Figure 5). However, most studies mention this as a general statement, while few show it as a research finding. This observation supports the hesitancy of a number of researchers to accept the mantra of increasing farmer– herder conflict at face value, as referenced above in Section 1. Geographic distribution of research on farmer–herder conflict FIGURE 6: MAP SHOWING GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF RESEARCH ON FARMER– HERDER CONFLICT 2 Mauritania 19 Mali 8 4 Niger 4 Senegal 14 Sudan 23 Chad Burkina 1 Faso Guinea 20 9 2 Nigeria Ivory 7 6 2 Ethiopia Coast Ghana Central African South Sudan 10 Republic Cameroon 1 Somalia 5 8 2 Togo Benin Uganda 4 Kenya 1 Democratic Republic of the Congo 86 5 Tanzania 3 studies focused on the whole African Region 5 studies on Sahel Region 2 studies on West Africa These studies did not specify the countries While the identification of the literature was not limited to a particular country or region in Africa, all identified case studies on farmer–herder conflict concentrate on the West and East Horn of Africa, with the majority focused on West Africa, particularly Burkina Faso, Nigeria and Mali (Figure 6). This suggests there is predominantly more research undertaken on farmer– herder conflicts in these regions or that such conflicts are more common in these areas or both. There were predominantly more case studies in the Sahel in the French literature than in the English. No articles on farmer–herder conflicts were identified for North or Southern Africa. No articles or papers were found for Burundi, Djibouti, Eritrea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Rwanda and Sierra Leone, suggesting that farmer–herder conflicts are not so prevalent in these countries; however, follow-up research is needed to confirm this. sparc-knowledge.org 19 Mention of women in farmer–herder conflicts Neglect of the gender dimension of conflict has been acknowledged for some time (Hamilton and Dama, 2003). Despite the indication that things were changing (ibid.), nearly 20 years later, the role of women in conflict is still not sufficiently discussed, particularly women’s role in promoting conflict or promoting peace (Brottem and McDonnell, 2020; Caroli et al., 2022). This is supported by the findings of this review, where only 25 of the 88 articles and papers mention women in relation to the conflicts described (Figure 7). This suggests a continued gap in research. FIGURE 7: NO. OF REPORTS MENTIONING WOMEN 25 Women mentioned? 63 Yes No Iin 70% of the cases where publications mention women, they are described as victims of conflict; in 30% they are described as instigators of or contributors to conflict; and in 30% they are described as having an important role in peacemaking. For example, Hagberg (2001) mentions that women instigated a conflict by informing a farmer’s son about alleged damage to his father’s crop field by a Fulani herder. The farmer’s son received this information and got into a fight with the young Fulani herdsman, killing him with a weapon. Sougnabe and Reounodji (2021) describe women as victims: ‘These situations promote cases of human rights violations, and it is often the civilian population, especially women and youth, who are targeted’. In addition, while narrowing down the literature for this review, many research articles analysing women’s access and rights vis-à-vis land were noticeable. Although these studies were not included in our review, as they were not specifically about farmer–herder conflicts, it suggests that research regarding women has touched on related issues, but that women are ignored in discussions of research on conflict and peacebuilding. 20 SPARC Causes of farmer–herder conflicts in Africa Mention of youth in farmer–herder conflicts FIGURE 8: NO. OF REPORTS MENTIONING YOUTH 38 Youth mentioned? 50 Yes No Of the 88 publications, 38 mention youth (Figure 8). Although the case studies do not state that they explicitly focused on male youth, the descriptions – for example, that youth are susceptible to recruitment into armed groups, forming vigilante groups for community protection, or track and return stolen livestock – suggest that the focus was on male youth and not female. No article includes any description of youth that suggests that they are talking about women or girls, suggesting an additional gap in the research. In 81% of the articles and papers where youth are mentioned describe young people as contributors to conflict, 50% as victims, and only 18% as peacemakers. As contributors to conflict, youth are most often described as doing so in groups to protect their communities, protest injustices, or take justice into their own hands. They are commonly described as susceptible to recruitment by armed groups, by either criminal groups or known insurgency groups such as Boko Haram, motivated by disillusionment, disenfranchisement, lack of opportunities and poverty. Komi (2018) reports that pastoralists are increasingly young and often lack the civility and maturity to resolve conflicts amicably. And CSAO/OECD-AFD (2013) notes: ‘The actors of violence are essentially young nomads (Tuaregs, Arabs, Toubous, Peuls) who have put themselves on the fringe of their communities’. Standalone research on the role of youth in conflict is scarce, with no articles or papers in the selection focusing on this. This indicates an area for further research. sparc-knowledge.org 21 Land and natural resources in relation to farmer–herder conflict While 100% of farmer–herder conflict studies report land and natural resources conflict (Figure 9), most mention the link as a general statement like conflict or competition over land, water, or a combination of the two, or over natural resources in general. A few studies provid a deeper analysis alongside this statement, for example situating the statement in historical context, and capturing the evolution of social, economic and political change that created conditions for inequality, for disparity between groups, for erosion of social relations, or for unresolved grievances over natural resources. FIGURE 9: NO. OF REPORTS MENTIONING LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES Land/Natural resources implicated in conflict Yes 88 No Climate change Given the current global emphasis on climate change, the authors undertook a search of the phrases ‘climate change’ and ‘changing climate’ within the English literature longlist of search results (Figure 2) and compared this with a similar search within the included 88 articles and papers. A search of these terms within the title, abstract and keywords of the longlist showed climate change mentioned 121 times out of 871 (14%). The longlist of results contained a wide assortment of studies that may be related to farmer–herder conflict but are not directly focused on this, for example, articles on land tenure, land grabbing, livelihood resilience or agricultural productivity. It appeared that climate change does not come up as a feature of interest in these areas of focus, explaining the limited mention of the topic. However, when searching for ‘climate change’ or ‘changing climate’ within the included combined 88 case studies focused on farmer–herder conflict, the topic is mentioned in 62 out of 88 papers (70%), and when expanded to include other ways of describing climate change (e.g., climate variability, desertification, drought) this number increased to 72 articles out of 88 (81%) (Figure 10). This indicates that climate change receives greater attention within primary research on farmer–herder conflict (discussed further below) than in literature more generally and is a topic that has received increased attention in recent years. 22 SPARC Causes of farmer–herder conflicts in Africa FIGURE 10: MENTION OF CLIMATE CHANGE WITHIN THE 88 INCLUDED STUDIES 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Year of publication No. of reports published No. of reports mentioning climate change sparc-knowledge.org 23 No. of reports 4. CAUSES OF CONFLICT All articles and papers identify multiple causes of farmer–herder conflict, with no paper citing one cause. Causes interact with one another in complex ways and at multiple levels depending on context and influential forces, though this is rarely considered in the articles reviewed. FIGURE 11: CAUSES OF CONFLICT BY CATEGORY AND FREQUENCY OF MENTION Population growth 17 Pastoral mismanagement 63 33 Corruption Weak or non-inclusive 61 33 Historical grievances governance Tenure insecurity/ 50 34 Climate change land issues Poor relationships 44 38 Environmental scarcity and ethnic bias 38 Violence and human insecurity The most frequently cited cause categories were pastoral mismanagement, weak or non- inclusive governance, tenure insecurity, land issues, deteriorating relationships, and ethnic bias. These were followed by environmental scarcity and violence (Figure 11). Climate change, while a topic of global interest, did not feature in the top causes. While difficult to draw conclusions from these results, they suggest that the emphasis of most studies is on the underlying governance, political and social factors of conflict, rather than resource scarcity or climate change. This finding aligns with findings from previous reviews (Brottem and McDonnell, 2020; Ntumva, 2022; Seter et al., 2018). Additionally, the large number of articles that cite pastoral mismanagement as a cause of conflict (63 in all) suggests a simplistic reading of a situation that has its deeper causes found elsewhere. 24 SPARC Causes of farmer–herder conflicts in Africa Pastoral mismanagement FIGURE 12: COMPONENTS OF PASTORAL MISMANAGEMENT AS A CAUSE OF CONFLICT Poor land management 24 Increased migration 26 56 Crop destruction Too many livestock 10 19 Overgrazing and pastoralists Sixty-three articles mention pastoral mismanagement as the cause of farmer–herder conflicts, with the most frequently cited cause being crop damage, followed by increased migration, poor land management and overgrazing and overstocking (Figure 12). Crop damage by pastoralist livestock is often described in isolation of why this may be happening. It is sometimes described as wilful or intentional, and sometimes put down to unintentional damage caused by inexperienced or overworked herders. While crop destruction may be a common and consistent trigger for conflict, some researchers argue that this issue masks underlying concerns and grievances, with deeper causes found elsewhere. Benjaminsen and Ba (2009) highlight that people will often tell the story that best supports their case. In the case of farmers, the story often centres on crop and farmland destruction, with overstocking, overgrazing and general misuse of natural resources causing damage and degradation. The issue is often more complicated, however, and often revolves around control of land and natural resources. The narrative of pastoral mismanagement also links to an existing belief among many settled communities and decision-makers that pastoralists use rangelands haphazardly and that pastoralism is a backward way of life, with transhumance described as illogical and responsible for conflict. While this narrative remains widespread, it has been strongly contested, particularly over the last two decades, with studies showing pastoralism as a rational, highly skill-based and adaptive land-use system ideally suited to the variable climate of the drylands (IIED and SOS Sahel, 2010; Nassef et al., 2009; Young et al., 2013). New herd dynamics are observed alongside more traditional forms of pastoralism, for example in Nigeria. Ajala (2020) describes a form of pastoralism called neo-pastoralism, which involves sparc-knowledge.org 25 very large herds kept for purely economic purposes, often by non-pastoralist absentee herd owners. These herds are accompanied by salaried herders who carry sophisticated weapons. South Sudan is mentioned similarly, where political and military elites have acquired very large herds with ‘resources gained during the war’ (Cottyn and Meester, 2021). These herds may not be managed in ways that sustain rational land use and the sophisticated weaponry used by the accompanying herders does not incentivise investment in maintaining good relations with host communities and can be used to intimidate them (Ajala, 2020). Because of these changing dynamics, it is not surprising that pastoralists as a whole are increasingly being held responsible for the actions of a few. Weak or exclusive governance Weak or exclusive governance is the most commonly cited category of causes, with 61 articles referring to this. Weak or exclusive governance was divided into categories of policies, institutions and processes (following the Sustainable Livelihoods framework). The main emphasis in the literature is on processes. The main processes mentioned, in decreasing order of frequency, are land-use change, politicisation,16 marginalisation, exclusion and modernisation. The main policy issue mentioned is policy bias. Weak or biased institutions are mentioned in 32 articles (Figure 13). FIGURE 13: COMPONENTS OF WEAK OR EXCLUSIVE GOVERNANCE AS A CAUSE OF CONFLICT Poor and exclusive governance system Process – power differentials 30 Policy – general problems 17 10 Process – inequality Policy – biases for or 16 26 against certain groups Process – exclusion 27 4 Policy – pluralism Institutions – Process – 27 32 weak or biased marginalisation institutions Process – 29 10 Process – changes in politicisation the livestock sector Process – absence of 9 21 accountability Process – modernisation Process – land use 36 20 16 Process – bias change and effects Process – commercialisation tand privatisation 16 Refers to the manipulation of local grievances, as well as ethnicity, for political ends. 26 SPARC Causes of farmer–herder conflicts in Africa The studies claim that land-use change contributes to conflict through shrinking rangelands and expansion of agricultural land, shrinking and disappearance of transhumance corridors, or similar statements. Some studies explore land-use change more deeply than others by identifying the links between this process and its more complex drivers, for example changing land tenure systems and national and local politics. However, others simply attribute land-use change to population growth and the increased demand for land. Omitting to discuss land- use change along with the drivers of this phenomenon obscures important connections to underlying political and social processes and can lead to interventions that merely address symptoms rather than underlying causes. The processes of exclusion, marginalisation and power differentials predominantly refer to the balance of power being in favour of settled farmers versus pastoralists, with some exceptions. Some of the literature describes both groups as marginalised from more centralised decision- making on resource allocation. In Somalia, while all of the above processes have been highlighted as issues, the balance of power favours pastoralists over farmers, with farmers being the marginalised group (Cottyn and Meester, 2021). It is also worth noting that, in some cases, the bias towards settled farming is not always present. For example, in Mali, the balance of power has shifted between nomadic pastoralists and settled farmers several times in the past (Benjaminsen and Ba, 2009). There is an imbalance of power between livelihood groups that is not static. It can shift with the times and in response to prevailing conditions. Also of note is that commercialisation and privatisation are mentioned in around 20% of the studies, although these issues have been identified as major factors increasing the vulnerability of rural livelihood groups (Krätli, 2021; Osman, 2012). In all identified cases, policy bias refers to a policy landscape favouring agriculture over pastoralism, and weak or biased institutions refers to weak or corrupt traditional institutions, deteriorating systems of traditional conflict mediation and resolution, and partial or ineffective state institutions and law enforcement, i.e., institutions rendered incapable of responding during times of conflict to restore peace, often allowing conflict to escalate to violence. © Stevie Mann/ ILRI sparc-knowledge.org 27 Land issues While land issues are among the top three cited cause categories of conflict (50 articles in all), land tenure insecurity itself is identified tangentially and more through its impacts such as blocked or limited access to land and natural resources and tenure disputes. The identification of tenure insecurity (i.e., the reason this may be happening) is mentioned in only 24% of the cases. This suggests that the analyses of farmer–herder conflicts fail to go to the root causes and rather focus on what is seen or can be more easily quantified and explained. A deeper investigation into the relationship between land tenure insecurity and conflict is recommended. In most customary dryland governance systems, all livelihood groups have a recognised right to natural resources. It is suggested that making an explicit connection between conflict and tenure insecurity would provide an entry point to discuss important changes in the dynamics of local, critical social relationships which underpin the security of rights to resources in communal tenure systems. While much of this is already discussed in the literature, identifying and explicitly naming tenure insecurity as an underlying cause of conflict could provide an additional logical entry point for this discussion. While narrowing down the long list of documents for this review, it was evident that there is a sizeable amount of research on land excision, expropriation and land grabbing,17 which is discussed separately from or tangentially to local-level conflict. At the same time, land grabbing or land expropriation is mentioned as a cause of conflict in only 13% of the included cases on farmer–herder conflict, suggesting further gaps in land issues and conflicts. FIGURE 14: LAND ISSUES AS A CAUSE OF CONFLICT Tenure insecurity 10 Land distribution issues 5 11 Expropriation Insecure land rights 14 52 Blocked or limited access 32 Tenure disputes 17 Refers to the acquisition of land, usually by private or foreign investors or by governments, for agriculture and biofuel production. Usually takes places on the back of national governance systems that ignore existing customary and communal land tenure arrangements and communities’ existing entitlements to land (Batterbury and Ndi, 2018). 28 SPARC Causes of farmer–herder conflicts in Africa Deteriorating relationships and ethnic bias Across much of the literature, the relationship between herders and farmers is described as ‘deteriorating’, with a breakdown of trust between the groups. Ethnic bias is also finding fertile ground to take root and is said to play a significant role in conflict (Figure 15). FIGURE 15: COMPONENTS OF DETERIORATING RELATIONSHIPS AND ETHNIC BIAS AS A CAUSE OF CONFLICT Deteriorating relationships 22 Negative labels 23 21 Breakdown of trust Ethnic bias 39 2 Lack of respect Unaddressed grievances 8 6 Animosity 8 Fear A distinction is made between deteriorating relationships and ethnic bias. The first refers to either a breakdown of existing relationships or connections between groups that were previously strong, based on social interaction, complementarity between livelihood systems and economic inter-dependence. Alternatively, it can be an absence of relationship, for example, when one group is new to an area and has no social ties or problematic communication, such as the absence of a common language, which can lead to escalation following misunderstanding or minor conflict. The second, ethnic bias, describes a more complex and insidious situation. As described by Maiangwa (2017), ethnic bias is about ‘who belongs and who does not belong, who is an alien and who is an indigene; hence, who is deserving of citizenship rights. Ultimately, it is a conflict of who is superior (dominant) and who is inferior (subordinate), and who determines when and how to control the sociopolitical affairs and the resources of the region’. Ejiofor (2021) describes this phenomenon as stemming from a fear of ‘not being seen’ or of ‘not getting one’s fair share’, because one’s culture and way of doing things is undervalued. Often this phenomenon has historical roots and has become a powerful means of manipulating local tensions for political ends (Bøås et al., 2020; Cline, 2020; Ugwueze et al., 2022; Young et al., 2009). Using negative labels to identify groups, particularly the Fulani, is also an issue highlighted. Eke (2020) and Ejiofor (2022) note that ignoring how groups are popularly represented and discussed plays a large role in maintaining the intractability of conflict. sparc-knowledge.org 29 Environmental scarcity FIGURE 16: COMPONENTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCARCITY AS A CAUSE OF CONFLICT Resource scarcity 34 Environmental 4 38 Limited resources insecurity Environmental change 11 24 Degradation Environmental scarcity as a cause of conflict dominates a lot of the discourse around farmer–herder conflict (Figure 16) and has in recent years garnered considerable criticism (Bond, 2014; Brottem, 2016; Krätli and Toulmin, 2020). The main point of contention with the scarcity argument is that while scarcity of land and natural resources as a driver of conflict is acknowledged as an issue, oversimplifying scarcity and attributing this solely to climate change or degradation is problematic, particularly as there are often underlying structural drivers of scarcity linked to exclusionary governance and politics. While the results of this scoping review find that environmental scarcity is still mentioned uncritically in many studies, a noticeable proportion of studies provide vocal and compelling critiques against oversimplification of the subject, and against decoupling the issue from wider local and national processes. This suggests a shift in the discourse on scarcity within research on farmer–herder conflict. 30 SPARC Causes of farmer–herder conflicts in Africa Broader violence and resulting human insecurity FIGURE 17: COMPONENTS OF VIOLENCE AND RESULTING HUMAN INSECURITY AS A CAUSE OF CONFLICT Broader violence unrelated to farmer-pastoralist conflict 20 Weapons proliferation 22 2 Problems with land distribution Human insecurity 11 27 Cattle raiding Over half the studies point to broader regional or national violence as a cause of farmer–herder conflict (Figure 17). Broader violence constitutes insurgencies in West Africa (e.g., the Boko Haram insurgency), alongside organised crime and the proliferation of arms.18 This larger-scale violence renders large areas dangerous and insecure and drives farmers and herders into smaller spaces, contributing to ‘resource scarcity’, and fuelling farmer–herder conflict (George et al., 2021). Insurgency groups are capitalising on existing farmer–herder grievances for their own purposes (for example for recruitment, or to build an informal political constituency base19) and are further polarising groups (Bøås et al., 2020). The influence of insurgencies and organised crime has also resulted in the increased uptake of arms by rural communities, for example, to arm local militias to protect communities from raids and attacks, which can too easily be a means of intimidation of rural communities (Ammour, 2020; Cline, 2020) and has resulted in the overall intensification of farmer–herder conflict (Cline, 2020; Bøås et al., 2020). Broader violence and its interaction with farmer–herder relations and conflict has resulted in the conflation of the two (albeit that the distinctions in some places may be blurry in the absence of critical analysis) and has further fuelled the incrimination of predominantly pastoralist groups such as the Fulani. 18 Weapons proliferation is cited as a main cause of conflict in this review. Given the prevalence of wider regional conflicts, small arms are plentiful and easy to access. Standalone studies have been written on small arms and light weapons (SALW) proliferation in Africa (for example, Sule et al., 2020; Wisotzki, 2022). 19 It has been observed that insurgency groups in West Africa are jockeying for positions as new actors in governance – e.g., showing that they are able to address local grievances and provide protection to different groups (Ammour, 2020; Bøås et al., 2020). sparc-knowledge.org 31 The most common cause, particularly in the French literature, is given as cattle raiding. Traditionally, cattle raiding has been part of some pastoralist societies for centuries. It is increasingly being driven by solely economic and often commercial interests beyond pastoralists. Non-traditional players in the livestock sector, including politicians, insurgency groups and criminals, use the lucrative livestock sector to further political and economic ends. This is now common. The ungoverned appropriation of livestock by these groups has meant the practice of raiding has become more invasive and violent, fuelling insecurity and fear, besides the fact that raiding has increased overall (Cline, 2020). It is also of note that, while this scoping review shows cattle raiding as a cause of conflict, the underlying changes in the livestock sector that underpin violent raiding and include issues such as new patterns of cattle ownership, increased value of cattle, and absentee herd ownership, receive considerably less attention within the case studies. Climate change Deeper analysis of the included studies shows that only 37 papers (42%) specify climate change and related terms as a cause of conflict. This differs from the 70% of papers that mention climate change in the article more generally (Figure 18). One reason for the notable discrepancy between mentions (70%) and listings as a cause could be that, in recent years, there has been a lively debate on whether climate change is a cause of conflict or an exacerbator of conflict when it interacts with other more systemic causes. The current consensus appears to be that climate change exacerbates conflict but is not a main cause, supporting its higher number of mentions. That is, it can be viewed as one factor that interacts with social, political and economic dynamics. It is this interaction, rather than climate change itself, that influences conflict (Benjaminsen and Ba, 2021; Brottem, 2016; Caroli et al., 2022; Madu and Nwankwo, 2021; Pacillo et al., 2022). FIGURE 18: NO. OF REPORTS MENTIONING CLIMATE CHANGE 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 1999 2004 2009 2014 2019 2024 Year of publication No. of reports published No. of reports mentioning climate change No. of reports mentioning climate change as a cause 32 SPARC Causes of farmer–herder conflicts in Africa No. of reports Climate security Climate security is increasingly being used as a term within dialogue on climate change (PNNL, 2022; SIPRI, 2015; UNEP 2018). Climate security refers to the security risks induced, directly or indirectly, by changes in climate patterns that substantially alter political stability, human security, or national security infrastructure. ‘The growing climate crisis poses geopolitical and socioeconomic stressors like population displacement, terrorism, economic stagnation, impacts to infrastructure, and social unrest’ (PNNL, 2022). See, for example: https://climateandsecurity.org and the new CGIAR research initiative on climate security. Despite this increasing global attention, climate security is only mentioned in two of the English language papers, and in none as a cause. It is discussed in one paper that refutes the climate security narrative and in a second paper climate security is said not to be a stand-alone cause but rather exacerbates pre-existing political, social and other conditions. The term for ‘climate security’ in French (sécurité climatique) is not mentioned in the articles reviewed. However, there is use of the French term for ‘environmental security’ (sécurité environnementale) (Assi et al., 2022; CSAO, 2010; Krätli and Toulmin, 2020; Rangé et al., 2020). © Fiona Flintan/ILRI sparc-knowledge.org 33 5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS While there has been a marked increase in attention given to farmer–herder conflict over the last two decades, this review identified only a few primary case studies. Although our review used only a few databases to access journal articles, this nevertheless suggests a significant gap in research. The majority of case studies indicate increasing (or increasingly violent) farmer–herder conflict. However, most studies mention this as a general statement, while few show this as a research finding. This observation supports the hesitancy of several researchers to accept the mantra of increasing farmer–herder conflict at face value and calls for further critical analysis and primary research. In all case studies, land and natural resources are mentioned as central issues in farmer– herder conflict, which mirrors the literature in the public domain. The literature reviewed listed the following as main causes of conflict: (1) pastoral mismanagement; (2) weak or non-inclusive governance; (3) poor relationships and ethnic bias; (4) violence and human insecurity; and (5) environmental scarcity. This supports findings from other recent but less systematic reviews. There also appears to be agreement on centring the causes of conflict more on governance, politics and relationships rather than technical aspects of resource scarcity or climate change (Brottem and McDonnell, 2020; Krätli and Toulmin, 2020; Ntumva, 2022; Seter et al., 2018). Many articles that cite pastoral mismanagement as a cause of conflict (63 in all) suggest a simplistic reading of a situation with its deeper causes found elsewhere. While tenure insecurity features as a cause of farmer–herder conflict, it tends to be approached tangentially – as impacts such as blocked or limited access to land and natural resources, tenure disputes and land-use change – while the identification of tenure insecurity itself, i.e., as the reason this may be happening, is scarce (mentioned in only 10 of the included cases). This suggests that the analysis of farmer–herder conflicts fails to go to the root causes and rather focuses on what is seen or can be more easily quantified and explained. A deeper investigation into the relationship between land tenure insecurity and conflict is recommended. Based on the included case studies, the conversation on environmental scarcity, climate change and pastoral mismanagement appears to be changing. There appears to be more criticism of accepting simplistic interpretations of environmental scarcity as a cause of conflict, less emphasis on climate change as a standalone cause (while acknowledging its role in exacerbating conflict), and more critical viewpoints expressed towards pastoral mismanagement. 34 SPARC Causes of farmer–herder conflicts in Africa While it was acknowledged 20 years ago that women are an often-missed demographic in the conversation on farmer–herder conflict, it appears that today this is still the case (with women being mentioned in only 28% of the included studies). Women are often described as victims and more rarely as contributors to conflict or peace. While some studies exist on the subject, the role of women in conflict is still under-studied and under-reported, constituting a gap for further research (see, for example, Adelehin et al., 2018; CDD, 2018; Hamilton and Dama, 2003; Odary et al., 2020). Youth are also under-represented in the literature (youth featuring in only 43% of included case studies) and are generally cast as instigators of conflict. The link between youth and conflict deserves more research attention given the high proportion of youth on the continent, the high proportion of youth who have grown up in environments of conflict and given the emphasis on youth militarisation in the literature. Female youth are not mentioned at all. The literature also suggests there is an increasing gap growing between youth and traditional leaders (Young et al., 2009). More research on youth (including women) in farmer– herder conflicts, the role they play and the impacts on them is urgently needed. sparc-knowledge.org 35 REFERENCES Adelehin, B., Achakpa, P., Suleman, J., Donli, P. and Osakwe B. (2018) ‘The impact of farmer herder conflict on women: in Adamawa, Gombe and Plateau States of Nigeria’. Washington, DC: Search for Common Ground Ajala, O. (2020) ‘New drivers of conflict in Nigeria: an analysis of the clashes between farmers and pastoralists’ Third World Quarterly 41(12): 1–19 (https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2020.1811662) Akinwotu, E. (2021) ‘Trail’s end: the days of roaming free are numbered for Nigeria’s herders’. The Guardian, 27 October (www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/oct/27/days-of-roaming-free-are-over-for- nigeria-herders) Ammour, L. (2020) ‘How violent extremist groups exploit intercommunal conflicts in the Sahel’. Washington, DC: Africa Center for Strategic Studies Aromataris E. and Riitano, D. (2014) ‘Constructing a search strategy and searching for evidence: a guide to the literature search for a systematic review’ AJN (May 2014) 114(5) Assi, T.M., Tra Djessou, F.M.H. and Koné, K.D. (2022) ‘Relation entre agriculteurs et éleveurs en contexte de changement climatique: cas de la région de Boundiali au nord de la Côte d’Ivoire’ 16èmes Journées de Recherches en Sciences Sociales, Clermont-Ferrand, 15 et 16 décembre, 18pp AU – African Union (2018) ‘Conflicts between pastoralists and farmers on the continent take more lives than terrorism’, 18 September (https://au.int/en/pressreleases/20180918/conflicts-between-pastoralists-and- farmers-continent-take-more-lives) Batterbury S.P.J. and Ndi, F. (2018) ‘Land grabbing in Africa’ in J.A. Binns, K. Lynch and E. Nel (eds) The Routledge handbook of African development, 573–582. London: Routledge Benjaminsen, T.A. and Ba, B. (2009) ‘Farmer–herder conflicts, pastoral marginalisation and corruption: a case study from the inland Niger delta of Mali’ Geographical Journal 175: 71–81 Benjaminsen, T.A. and Ba, B. (2021) ‘Fulani-Dogon killings in Mali: farmer–herder conflicts as insurgency and counterinsurgency’ African Security 14(1): 4–26 Bøås, M., Cissé, A.W. and Mahamane, L. (2020) ‘Explaining violence in Tillabéri: insurgent appropriation of local grievances?’ The International Spectator 55(4): 118–132 (DOI: 10.1080/03932729.2020.1833567) Boateng, J.A. (2022) ‘Ejura Traditional Council declares war on Fulani herdsmen’. Modern Ghana, 17 February (www.modernghana.com/news/1139726/ejura-traditional-council-declares-war-on-fulani.html) Bond, J. (2014) ‘A holistic approach to natural resource conflict: the case of Laikipia County, Kenya’ Journal of Rural Studies 34: 117–127 (www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0743016714000217) Brottem, L.V. (2016) ‘Environmental change and farmer–herder conflict in agro-pastoral West Africa’ Human Ecology 44(5): 547–563 Brottem, L. and McDonnell, A. (2020) ‘Pastoralism and conflict in the Sudano-Sahel: a review of the literature’. Washington, DC: Search for Common Ground (https://www.sfcg.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/ Pastoralism_and_Conflict_in_the_Sudano-Sahel_Jul_2020.pdf) Caroli, G., Tavenner, K., Huyer, S., et al. (2022) ‘The gender–climate–security nexus: conceptual framework, CGIAR portfolio review, and recommendations towards an agenda for One CGIAR’. Position Paper 2022/1. CGIAR FOCUS Climate Security. Beirut: CGIAR CDD – Centre for Democracy and Development (2018) ‘Farmer–herder conflict in northern Nigeria: trends, dynamics and gender perspectives’. Abuja: CDD Chime, V. (2021) ‘From Nigeria’s farmer–herder clashes to the Sahel crisis – is climate change worsening conflicts in Africa?’, The Cable, 19 April (www.thecable.ng/from-nigerias-farmer-herder-clashes-to- thesahel-crisis-is-climate-change-worsening-conflicts-in-africa) Cline, L.E. (2020) ‘War on the hoof: regional security in Africa and livestock conflicts’ Small Wars & Insurgencies 31(1): 87–105 (DOI: 10.1080/09592318.2020.1672965) Cottyn, I. and Meester, J. (2021) ‘“Of cattle and conflict” – rethinking responses to pastoralism-related conflicts’. CRU Policy Brief. The Hague, Netherlands: Clingendael (www.clingendael.org/sites/default/ files/2021-08/Policy_brief_Rethinking_responses_pastoralism_related_conflicts_August_2021.pdf) CRD – Center for Reviews and Dissemination (2019) ‘Systematic reviews. CRD’s guidance for taking reviews in health care’. York: University of York, UK. CSAO – Club du Sahel et de l’Afrique de l’Ouest (2010) ‘Incidences sécuritaires du changement climatique au Sahel. Cas no. 2 : Conflits agropasteurs dans le sud ouest du Burkina Faso (Province de la Comoé)’. Paris: CSAO CSAO/OCDE-AFD (2013) ‘Elevage pastoral : Une contribution durable au développement et à la sécurité des espaces saharo-sahéliens’. Colloque élevage pastoral, N’Djamena (Tchad), 27-29 mai. N’Djamena : CSAO/ OCDE-AFD DFID – Department for International Development (2000) Sustainable livelihoods guidance sheets. London: DFID (www.livelihoodscentre.org/-/sustainable-livelihoods-guidance-sheets) 36 SPARC Causes of farmer–herder conflicts in Africa Ejiofor, P.F. (2021) ‘The fear of ethnic domination: explaining the persistence of natural resource conflicts in Nigeria’ Ethnopolitics (DOI: 10.1080/17449057.2021.2006521) Ejiofor, P.F. (2022) ‘“Fulanis are foreign terrorists”: the social construction of a suspect community in the Sahel’ Critical Studies on Terrorism 15(2): 333–355 (DOI 10.1080/17539153.2021.2015841) Eke, S. (2020) ‘“Nomad savage” and herder–farmer conflicts in Nigeria: the (un)making of an ancient myth’ Third World Quarterly 41(5): 745–763 (DOI: 10.1080/01436597.2019.1702459) Flintan, F., Robinson, L. and Bello, M.A. (2021) A review of tenure and governance in the pastoral lands of East and West Africa. Supporting Pastoralism and Agriculture in Recurrent and Protracted Crises (SPARC). London: ODI George, J., Adelaja, A., Awokuse, T. and Vaughan, O. (2021) ‘Terrorist attacks, land resource competition and violent farmer–herder conflicts’ Land Use Policy 102 (105241) Hagberg, S. (2001) ‘À l’ombre du conflit violent. Règlement et gestion des conflits entre agriculteurs karaboro et agro-pasteurs peuls au Burkina Faso’ Cahiers d’études africaines 161(XLI-1): 45–72 Hamilton, L. and Dama, A. (2003) ‘Gender and natural resource conflict management in Nioro du Sahel, Mali’. Issue Paper 116. London: International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) Higgins, J.P.T., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M.J. and Welch, V. (eds) (2022) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.3 (updated February 2022). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Hussein, K., Sumberg, J. and Seddon, D. (1999) ‘Increasing violent conflict between herders and farmers in Africa: claims and evidence’. London: ODI IEP – Institute for Economics and Peace (2015) Global Terrorism Index, 2015: measuring and understanding the impact of terrorism. Sydney: IEP IIED – International Institute for Environment and Development – and SOS Sahel (2010) Modern and mobile: the future of livestock production in Africa’s drylands. London: IIED de Jode, H. and Flintan, F. (2020) ‘How to prevent land use conflicts in pastoral areas’. Rome: International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and CGIAR Johnsen, K.I., Niamir-Fuller, M., Bensada, A. and Waters-Bayer, A. (2019) ‘A case of benign neglect: knowledge gaps about sustainability in pastoralism and rangelands’. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme and GRID-Arendal de Jong, L., De Bruin, S., Knoop, J. and van Vliet, J. (2021) ‘Understanding land-use change conflict: a systematic review of case studies’ Journal of Land Use Science 16(3): 223–239 (DOI: 10.1080/1747423X.2021.1933226) Komi, A.K. (2018) ‘Des conflits violents entre des agriculteurs et des éleveurs africains : de l’(in)hospitalité de et pour ce(ux) qui dérange(nt)’ Revue de l’Institut de Sociologie 88 : 77–98 Krätli, S. (2021) ‘Role of local governance and community-based institutions for the peaceful co-management of natural resources. Reflections from Central Darfur and North Darfur’. Boston, MA: Feinstein International Center Brief Krätli, S. and Toulmin, C. (2020) ‘Farmer–herder conflict in sub-Saharan Africa?’. London: International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) Madu, I. and Nwankwo, C.F. (2021) ‘Spatial pattern of climate change and farmer–herder conflict vulnerabilities in Nigeria’ GeoJournal 86(6): 2691–2707 Maiangwa, B. (2017) ‘“Conflicting Indigeneity” and farmer–herder conflicts in postcolonial Africa’ Peace Review 29(3): 282–288 (DOI: 10.1080 /10402659.2017.1344527) Mehta, L., Huff, A. and Allouche, J. (2019) ‘The new politics and geographies of scarcity’ Geoforum 101: 222–230 Mitchell, C.R. (1981) The structure of international conflict. London: Macmillan Nassef, M., Anderson, S. and Hesse, C. (2009) ‘Pastoralism and climate change: enabling adaptive capacity’. London: International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) Ntumva, M.E. (2022) ‘Land conflict dynamics in Africa: a critical review on farmer–pastoralist conflict perspectives’ International Journal of Peace and Development Studies 13(1): 17–28 Odary, K.V., Komba, E. and Nyamato, W. (2020) ‘Reviewing the role of women pastoralist in conflicts in the Horn of Africa’ African Journal on Land Policy and Geospatial Sciences 3(4) Olufemi, A. (2021) ‘Horrors on the plateau: inside Nigeria’s farmer–herder conflict’. Al Jazeera, 28 November (www.aljazeera.com/features/2021/11/28/horrors-on-the-plateau-inside-nigerias-farmer-herder-conflict) Osman, A. (2012) ‘Agricultural change, land and violence: an examination of the region of Darfur, Sudan’ (PhD thesis, Tufts University) Pacillo, G., Loboguerrero, A.M., Gilmore, E., Läderach, P. and Gupta, T.D. (2022) ‘Climate may not directly drive conflict but it’s critical for building peace’. The Conversation, 21 April 2022 (https://theconversation. com/climate-may-not-directly-drive-conflict-but-its-critical-for-building-peace-180887#:~:text=The%20 links%20between%20climate%2C%20conflict%20and%20fragility&text=It%20could%20be%20harder%20 to,empowerment%20can%20contribute%20to%20peace) Page, M.J., McKenzie, J.E., Bossuyt, P.M., et al. (2021) ‘The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews’ BMJ 372(71) sparc-knowledge.org 37 Peters, M., Godfrey, C., Khalill, H., McInerney, P., Parker, D. and Soares, C. (2015) ‘Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews’ International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare 13(3) PNNL – Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (2022) ‘Climate security’. Washington, DC: PNNL (www.pnnl. gov/climate-security) Rangé, C., Magnani, S.D. and Ancey, V. (2020) ‘« Pastoralisme » et « Insécurité » en Afrique de l’Ouest: Du narratif réifiant à la dépossession politique’ Revue internationale des études du développement 3(243): 115–150 Scoones, I., Smalley, R., Hall, R. and Tsikata D. (2019) ‘Narratives of scarcity: framing the global land rush’ Geoforum 101: 231–241 Seter, H., Theisen, O.M. and Schilling, J. (2018) ‘All about water and land? Resource-related conflicts in East and West Africa revisited’ GeoJournal 83: 169–187 SIPRI – Stockhollm International Peace Institute (2015) ‘Climate and security’. Stockholm: SIPRI (www.sipri. org/research/peace-and-development/climate-change-and-risk/climate-change-and-security) Sougnabe, P., and Reounodji, F. (2021) Mécanismes de Prévention et de Gestion des Conflits dans les Zones d’Intervention du Projet ACCEPT. Paris : IRAM/Plateforme pastorale Tchad/ Projet ACCEPT Stahlschmidt, S. and Stephen, D. (2020) ‘Comparison of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions databases’. KB Forschungspoolprojekt. Hannover: German Centre for Higher Education Research and Science Studies (DZHW) Sule, B., Mikail, I.K. and Yahaya, M.A. (2020) An overview of the genesis, sources, manifestations and impact of small arms and light weapons (SALW) in northern Nigeria’ Journal of International Studies 16: 195–218 Sulieman, H.M. (2015) ‘Grabbing of communal rangelands in Sudan: the case of large-scale mechanized rain- fed agriculture’ Land Use Policy 47: 439–447 The Sun (2022) ‘Agony of survivors of farmers-herders’ crisis in North Central’, 17 May, The Sun (www.sunnewsonline.com/agony-of-survivors-of-farmers-herders-crisis-in-north-central/) Tarif, K. (2022) ‘Climate change and violent conflict in West Africa: assessing the evidence’. SIPRI Insights on Peace and Security. Stockholm: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute Ugwueze, M., Omenma, J. and Okwueze, F. (2022) ‘Land related conflicts and the nature of government responses in Africa: the case of farmer–herder crises in Nigeria’ Society 59(3): 240–253 UN – United Nations (2019) ‘Deadlier conflicts, climate change threaten cross-border herding in West Africa, delegates tell Economic and Social Council, Peacebuilding Commission’. Meetings Coverage and Press Releases, 3 December, covering the Economic and Social Council Peacebuilding Commission, Joint Meeting (www.un.org/press/en/2019/ecosoc7015.doc.htm) UN (2020) ‘Preventing, mitigating and resolving transhumance-related conflicts in UN peacekeeping settings. A survey of practice’. New York: UN UNEP – United Nations Environment Programme (2012) Toolkit and guidance for preventing and managing land and natural resources conflict. Nairobi: UNEP (https://reliefweb.int/report/world/toolkit-and-guidance- preventing-and-managing-land-and-natural-resources-conflict) UNEP (2018) ‘Cllmate security mechanism’. Nairobi: UNEP (www.unep.org/explore-topics/disasters-conflicts/ what-we-do/disaster-risk-reduction/climate-security-mechanism) UNOWAS – United Nations Office for West Africa and the Sahel (2018) ‘Pastoralism and security in West Africa and the Sahel: towards peaceful coexistence’. Dakar, Senegal: UNOWAS Wiederkehr, C., Ide, T., Seppelt, R. and Hermans, K. (2022) ‘It’s all about politics: migration and resource conflicts in the global south’ World Development 157(2022): 105938 Wisotzki, S. (2022) ‘Efforts to curb the proliferation of small arms and light weapons: from persistent crisis to norm failure?’ Studies in Peace and Conflict 10:247-271 (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/ s42597-022-00073-9) Young, H., Osman, A.M, Abusin, A.M., Asher, M. and Egemi, O. (2009) ‘Livelihoods, power and choice: the vulnerability of the Northern Rizaygat, Darfur, Sudan’. Boston, MA: Feinstein International Center, Tufts University Young, H., Sulieman, H., Behnke, R., et al. (2013) ‘Pastoralism in practice: monitoring livestock mobility in contemporary Sudan’. Medford, MA: Feinstein International Center, Tufts University (https://fic.tufts.edu/ publication-item/pastoralism-in-practice/) 38 SPARC Causes of farmer–herder conflicts in Africa ANNEX 1: STUDIES INCLUDED IN THE REVIEW Adelehin, B., Achakpa, P., Suleman, J., Donli, P. and Osakwe B. (2018) ‘The impact of farmer herder conflict on women: in Adamawa, Gombe and Plateau States of Nigeria’. Washington, DC: Search for Common Ground AFL – Acting for Life (2018) ‘Les dangers d’une ethnicisation des conflits agriculture-élevage.’ Le Bourget Cedex : AFL. (https://acting-for-life.org/app/uploads/NT-Ethnies-conflits-AFL.pdf) Ahmed, A. and Kuusaana, E.D. (2021) ‘Cattle ranching and farmer–herder conflicts in sub-Saharan Africa: exploring the conditions for successes and failures in Northern Ghana’ African Security 14(2): 132–155 Ajala, O. (2020) ‘New drivers of conflict in Nigeria: an analysis of the clashes between farmers and pastoralists’ Third World Quarterly 41(12): 1–19 (https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2020.1811662) Ammour, L. (2020) ‘How violent extremist groups exploit intercommunal conflicts in the Sahel’. Washington, DC: Africa Center for Strategic Studies Apeh, A.A., Opata, C.C., Amaechi, C.M. and Njoku, O.N. (2021) ‘Cattle rights versus human rights: herdsmen– farmer clashes in Nigeria’ Rural History 32(2): 197–216 Arditi, C. (2003) ‘Les violences ordinaires ont une histoire: le cas du Tchad’ Politique africaine 3: 51–67 Arditi, C. (2005) ‘Les «enfants bouviers» du sud du Tchad, nouveaux esclaves ou apprentis éleveurs?’ Cahiers d’études africaines 45(179–80): 713–729 Arowosegbe, J.O. (2020) ‘Territoriality and violent conflicts in Tivland’ International Journal on Minority and Group Rights 28(3): 436–465 Assi, T.M., Tra Djessou, F.M.H. and Koné, K.D. (2022) ‘Relation entre agriculteurs et éleveurs en contexte de changement climatique: cas de la région de Boundiali au nord de la Côte d’Ivoire’ 16èmes Journées de Recherches en Sciences Sociales, Clermont-Ferrand, 15 et 16 décembre, 18pp Awazi, N.P. and Avana-Tientcheu, M.L. (2020) ‘Agroforestry as a sustainable means to farmer–grazier conflict mitigation in Cameroon’ Agroforestry Systems, 94(6): 2147–2165 Ayandele, O. (2021) ‘Confronting Nigeria’s Kaduna Crisis’. Washington, DC: Africa Center for Strategic Studies Bamba, L., Konan Kouakou, I. and Traore, N.D.M. (2022) ‘Conflits agropastoraux en Côte d’Ivoire (cas de Bouna)’ Revue Internationale des Sciences de Gestion 5(2): 875–901 Banzhaf, M., Drabo, B. and Grell, H. (2000) ‘Du conflit au consensus: les pasteurs et agro-pasteurs de Kishi Beiga (Burkina Faso) optent pour la cogestion de leurs ressources naturelles’. Washington DC: Securing the Commons 3 / Russell Press: Groupe de recherche d’action sur le foncier (GRAF) Banzhaf, M., Drabo, B. and Grell, H. (2000) ‘From conflict to consensus: towards joint management of natural resources by pastoralists and agro-pastoralists in the zone of Kishi Beiga, Burkina Faso’ Securing the Commons 3. London: International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) Bastien, A., Baillat, A., Gemenne, F. and Schneider, E. (2018) Observatoire géopolitique des enjeux des changements climatiques en termes de sécurité et de défense. Rapport d’étude n°6, Prospective Sahel. Observatoire Défense et Climat, Direction Générale des Relations Internationales et de la Stratégie, Ministère des Armées, (https://defenseclimat.fr/en/prospective-sahel-2/) Beeler, S. (2006) ‘Conflicts between farmers and herders in north-western Mali’. London: IIED (www.iied.org) Benjaminsen, T.A. and Ba, B. (2009) ‘Farmer–herder conflicts, pastoral marginalisation and corruption: a case study from the inland Niger delta of Mali’ Geographical Journal 175: 71–81 Benjaminsen, T.A. and Ba, B. (2021) ‘Fulani-Dogon killings in Mali: farmer–herder conflicts as insurgency and counterinsurgency’ African Security 14(1): 4–26 Benjaminsen, T.A., Maganga, F.P. and Abdallah, J.M. (2009) ‘The Kilosa killings: political ecology of a farmer– herder conflict in Tanzania’ Development and Change 40(3): 423–445 Bergius, M., T. Benjaminsen, F. Maganga and H. Buhaug (2020). Green economy, degradation narratives, and land-use conflicts in Tanzania. World Development. Vol. 129. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0305750X19304991 Betabelet, J.R., Ababa, A.M. and Tidjani, I. (2015) ‘Élevage bovin et conflits en Centrafrique’ Les Cahiers d’Outre- Mer 272: 463–608 Bond, J. (2014) ‘A holistic approach to natural resource conflict: the case of Laikipia County, Kenya’ Journal of Rural Studies 34: 117–127 (www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0743016714000217) Bonnet, B. (2013) ‘Vulnérabilité pastorale et politiques publiques de sécurisation de la mobilité pastorale au Sahel’ Mondes en développement 4(164): 71–91 Bontoulougou, J., Oule, J.M., Pellissier, J.P. and Tallet, B. (2000) ‘La participation des acteurs, un exercice difficile – Leçons de l’expérience d’un plan de lutte contre la trypanosomose animale africaine dans la vallée du Mouhoun (Burkina Faso)’ Natures Sciences Sociétés 8(1) : 33–43 sparc-knowledge.org 39 Brockhaus, M., Pickardt, T. and Rischkowsky, B. (2003) ‘Mediation in a changing landscape: success and failure in managing conflicts over natural resources in Southwest Burkina Faso’ Drylands Programme 125. London: IIED Bronkhorst, S. (2012) ‘Rareté de ressources et conflit entre pasteurs et agriculteurs au Sud-Kordofan, Soudan. Les obstacles à la promotion du pastoralisme comme forme d’adaptation au changement climatique’ Cultures & Conflits (88): 111–132 Brossier, M., Jourde, C.M. and Cissé, G. ‘Relations de pouvoir locales, logiques de violence et participation politique en milieu peul (Région de Mopti)’. Montréal: Chaire Raoul-Dandurand en études stratégiques et diplomatiques, Université du Québec à Montréal Brottem, L.V. (2016) ‘Environmental change and farmer–herder conflict in agro-pastoral West Africa’ Human Ecology 44(5): 547–563 Brottem, L. (2021) ‘La complexité croissante des conflits entre agriculteurs et éleveurs en Afrique de l’Ouest et central’. Bulletin de la Sécurité Africaine 39. Washington, DC: Centre d’études stratégiques de l’Afrique Brottem, L. (2021) ‘The growing complexity of farmer–herder conflict in West and Central Africa’ Africa Security Brief 39. Washington, DC: Africa Center for Strategic Studies Brown, O. (2019) ‘Dossier sur les risques entraînés par le climat et la fragilité: Afrique du Nord & Sahel’. Berlin: Adelphi research gGmbH Campbell, D.J., Gichohi, H., Mwangi, A. and Chege, L. (2000) ‘Land use conflict in Kajiado District, Kenya’ Land Use Policy 17(4): 337–348 (www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837700000387) CESA/ACSS – Centre d’études stratégiques de l’Afrique (2019) ‘Réduire la violence entre agriculteurs et éleveurs au Mali’. Washington, DC: CESA Cottyn, I. and Meester, J. (2021) ‘“Of cattle and conflict” – rethinking responses to pastoralism-related conflicts’. CRU Policy Brief. The Hague, Netherlands: Clingendael (www.clingendael.org/sites/default/ files/2021-08/Policy_brief_Rethinking_responses_pastoralism_related_conflicts_August_2021.pdf) CSAO – Club du Sahel et de l’Afrique de l’Ouest (2010) ‘Incidences sécuritaires du changement climatique au Sahel. Cas no. 2 : Conflits agropasteurs dans le sud ouest du Burkina Faso (Province de la Comoé)’. Paris: CSAO CSAO/OCDE – Organisation de coopération et de développement économiques (2008) ‘Elevage au Sahel et en Afrique de l’Ouest. Promouvoir et accompagner la transformation du pastoralisme transhumant dans les pays du Sahel et de l’Afrique de l’Ouest’. Ouagadougou: Inter-Réseaux Développement Rural CSAO/OCDE/CEDEAO – Communauté Economique des Etats de l’Afrique de l’Ouest (2008) ‘Élevage et marché régional au Sahel et en Afrique de l’Ouest : Potentialités et défis’. Paris: CEDEAO – CSAO/OCDE en partenariat avec l’UEMOA, le CILSS et le ROPPA CSAO/OCDE-AFD – Agence Française de Développement (2013) ‘Elevage pastoral : Une contribution durable au développement et à la sécurité des espaces saharo-sahéliens’. Colloque élevage pastoral, N’Djamena (Tchad), 27-29 mai. N’Djamena: CSAO/OCDE-AFD Diarra Boi, A. (2019) ‘Mitigating farmer–herder violence in Mali’. Washington, DC: Africa Center For Strategic Studies (https://africacenter.org/spotlight/mitigating-farmer-herder-violence-in-mali/) Dimelu, M.U., Salifu, E.D. and Igbokwe, E.M. (2016) ‘Resource use conflict in agrarian communities, management and challenges: a case of farmer–herdsmen conflict in Kogi State, Nigeria’ Journal of Rural Studies, 46: 147–154 (www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0743016716300973) Diogo, R.V.C., Dossa, L.H., Vanvanhossou, S.F.U., et al. (2021) ‘Farmers’ and herders’ perceptions on rangeland management in two agroecological zones of Benin’ Land, 10(4): 1–17 Djenontin, A.J.P., Houinato, M., Toutain, B. and Sinsin, B. (2009) ‘Pratiques et stratégies des éleveurs face à la réduction de l’offre fourragère au Nord-Est du Bénin’ Science et changements planétaires/Sécheresse 20(4): 346–353 Djohy, G.L., Sounon Bouko, B., Dossou, P.J. and YabI, J.A. (2021) ‘Relations entre éleveurs et agriculteurs dans un contexte de changements climatiques dans le bassin de l’Ouémé Supérieur au Benin : Entre coopération et conflit’ Agronomie Africaine 33(2): 161–176 Dongmo, A.L., Havard, M., Mbiandoun, M. and Njoya, A. (2007) ‘Responsabilités sociétale et étatique dans la gestion des terroirs et des relations agriculture-élevage au Nord-Cameroun : vers un cadre de concertation’. Revue scientifique 2007 de l’Institut de Recherche Agricole pour le Développement « La recherche agricole dans le processus d’intégration régionale d’Afrique Centrale » Palais des Congrès, 2 au 4 juillet, Yaoundé, Cameroun Dugué, P., Fahiraman Rodrigue, K. and Gnagandjomon, K. (2003) ‘Gestion des ressources naturelles et évolution des systèmes de production agricoles des savanes de Côte d’Ivoire: conséquences pour l’élaboration des politiques agricoles.’ In J. Jean-Yves, S. Lamine and F. Christian (eds) ‘Savanes africaines : des espaces en mutation, des acteurs face à de nouveaux défis. Actes du colloque, Garoua, Cameroun, 27-31 mai 2002’. Montpellier: CIRAD, Dugué, P., Vall, E., Lecomte, P., Klein, H-D. and Rollin, D. (2004) ‘Evolution des relations entre l’agriculture et l’élevage dans les savanes d’Afrique de l’Ouest et du Centre’ Oléagineux, Corps Gras, Lipides 11(4): 268–276 Dugué, P., Koné, F.R., Koné, G. and Akindes, F. (2004) ‘Production agricole et élevage dans le centre du bassin cotonnier de Côte d’Ivoire: développement économique, gestion des ressources naturelles et conflits entre acteurs’ Cahiers Agricultures 13: 504–509 40 SPARC Causes of farmer–herder conflicts in Africa Eberle, U., Rohner, D. and Thoenig, M. (2020) Heat and hate: climate security and farmer–herder conflicts in Africa. ESOC Working Paper 22. Princeton, NJ: Empirical Studies of Conflict, Princeton University (https:// esoc.princeton.edu/WP22) Egeimi, O., Mahmood, M.A. and Abdella, A.M. (2003) ‘Towards a local peace: SOS Sahel’s experience of conflict between pastoralists and farmers at El Ain, North Kordofan State, Sudan’. Securing the commons 5. London: IIED Feldt, T., Karg, H., Kadaouré, I., Bessert, L. and Schlecht, E. (2020) ‘Growing struggle over rising demand: how land use change and complex farmer–grazier conflicts impact grazing management in the Western Highlands of Cameroon’ Land Use Policy 95 (104579) (www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0264837719305083) François, A., Aarnink, M. and Touquet, C. (2015) ‘Faciliter la mobilité du bétail en Afrique de l’Ouest dans l’espace et dans le temps. Les différentes étapes d’un dispositif de sécurisation de pistes’. Le Bourget: Acting for Life Gautier, D., Ankogui-Mpoko, G-F., Réounodji, F., Njoya, A. and Seignobos, C. (2005) ‘Agriculteurs et éleveurs des savanes d’Afrique Centrale : De la coexistence à l’intégration territoriale’. L’Espace géographique 3 (34): 223–236 Gaye, S.B. (2017) ‘Conflits entre agriculteurs et éleveurs dans un contexte de menaces asymétriques au Mali et au Burkina Faso’. Dakar: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Paix et Sécurité / Centre de Compétence Afrique Subsaharienne Hagberg, S. (2001) ‘À l’ombre du conflit violent. Règlement et gestion des conflits entre agriculteurs karaboro et agro-pasteurs peuls au Burkina Faso’ Cahiers d’études africaines 161(XLI-1): 45–72 ICG – International Crisis Group (2018) ‘Stopping Nigeria’s spiralling farmer–herder violence’ Africa Report No. 262, 26 July. Brussels: ICG (www.crisisgroup.org/africa/west-africa/nigeria/262-stopping-nigerias- spiralling-farmer-herder-violence) Jacquemot, P. (2022) ‘La coexistence contrariée entre pasteurs et agriculteurs en Afrique subsaharienne’ Afrique contemporaine 2(274): 7–50 Jobbins, M., McDonnell, A. and Brottem, L. (2021) ‘Pastoralisme et conflit : outils de prévention et d’intervention dans la région Soudano-Sahélienne’. Washington, DC: Search for Common Ground Komi, A.K. (2018) ‘Des conflits violents entre des agriculteurs et des éleveurs africains : de l’(in)hospitalité de et pour ce(ux) qui dérange(nt)’ Revue de l’Institut de Sociologie 88: 77–98 Krätli, S. and Toulmin, C. (2020) Conflit entre agriculteurs et éleveurs en Afrique subsaharienne? London: IIED Krätli, S., Sougnabé, P., Staro, F. and Young, H. (2018) ‘Systèmes pastoraux dans le Dar Sila, Tchad : Un document d’information pour Concern Worldwide’. Boston, MA: Feinstein International Center, Tufts University. Kuusaana, E.D. and Bukari, K.N. (2015) ‘Land conflicts between smallholders and Fulani pastoralists in Ghana: evidence from the Asante Akim North District (AAND)’ Journal of Rural Studies 42: 52–62 Kwaja, C.M. and Ademola-Adelehin, B.I. (2017) ‘The Implications of the open grazing prohibition and ranches establishment law on farmer–herder relations in the Middle Belt of Nigeria’. Washington, DC: Search for Common Ground (www.sfcg.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Open-Grazing-Prohibition-Law-in-Benue- State-December-2017.pdf) Kwaja, C.M.A. and Ademola-Adelehin, B.I. (2018) ‘In the Middle Belt of Nigeria: between farmers and herders responses to conflicts mapping past efforts and opportunities for violence prevention’ Responses to Conflicts (January). Washington, DC: Search for Common Ground Kwaja, C.M. and Bukola, A.-A. (2018) ‘Seeking security and stability: an analysis of security responses to farmer–herder conflict in the Middle Belt region of Nigeria’. Washington, DC: Search for Common Ground Kwaja, C.M. and Smith, K. (2020) ‘Transnational dimensions of conflict between farmers and herders in the Western Sahel and lake Chad basin’. Washington, DC: Search for Common Ground (http://plateforme- pastorale-tchad.org/classified/Search_Policy_Brief_Transnational_Dimension_to_FH_Conflicts_ April_2020.pdf) Magrin, G. (2002) ‘Un Sud qui perd le Nord ? Les récents rejeux de la fracture tchadienne (‘”South” straying away from “North”? A recent reactivation of the Chadian fault’) Bulletin de l’Association de Géographes Français 79(2): 185–198 Magrin, G. and Minot, O. (2005) ‘Les zones soudaniennes du Tchad et du Sénégal: deux sud enclavés entre mondialisation et marginalisation’ Espace, Populations, Sociétés 1: 15–30 Massay, G.E. (2017) ‘In search of the solution to farmer–pastoralist conflicts in Tanzania’. Occasional Paper 257. Johannesburg: South African Institute of International Affairs Mbih, R.A. (2020) ‘The politics of farmer–herder conflicts and alternative conflict management in Northwest Cameroon’ African Geographical Review 39(4): 324–344 Mbonile, M.J. (2005) ‘Migration and intensification of water conflicts in the Pangani Basin, Tanzania’ Habitat International 29(1): 41–67 Médard, L. and Ozias, S. (2007) ‘Bébédjia (sud du Tchad), un espace sous pression’ VertigO-la revue électronique en sciences de l’environnement. Hors-série 4 Otu, B.O. and Impraim, K. (2021) ‘Aberration of farmer–pastoralist conflicts in Ghana’ Peace Review 33(3): 412–419 sparc-knowledge.org 41 Pellerin, M. (2021) ‘Entendre la voix des éleveurs au sahel et en Afrique de l’ouest: quel avenir pour le pastoralisme face à l’insécurité et ses impacts ?’ Réseau Billital Maroobé et partenaires Plateforme Pastorale du Tchad (2019) ‘Adapter l’accès aux ressources agro-pastorales dans un contexte de mobilité et de changement climatique pour l’élevage au Tchad – ACCEPT’. Paris: Centre de coopération internationale en recherche agronomique pour le développement (CIRAD) (www.cirad.fr/dans-le-monde/ cirad-dans-le-monde/projets/projet-accept) Rangé, C., Magnani, S.D. and Ancey, V. (2020) ‘« Pastoralisme » et « Insécurité » en Afrique de l’Ouest: Du narratif réifiant à la dépossession politique’ Revue internationale des études du développement 3(243): 115–150 Robert, E. (2010) ‘Les zones pastorales comme solution aux conflits agriculteurs/pasteurs au Burkina Faso: l’exemple de la zone pastorale de la Doubégué’ Les Cahiers d’Outre-Mer/ Revue de géographie de Bordeaux 63(249): 47–71 Rouchier, J. and Requier-Desjardins, M. (2000) ‘La modélisation comme soutien à l’interdisciplinarité en recherche-développement. Une application au pastoralisme soudano-sahélien-Communication à colloque’ Natures Sciences Sociétés 8(3): 61–67 Sougnabe, S.P. (2003) ‘Conflits agriculteurs-éleveurs en zone soudanienne au Tchad: Une étude comparée de deux régions – Moyen-Chari et Mayo-Kebbi’. In Jamin, J.Y., Seiny Boukar, L., Floret C. (éditeurs scientifiques), Savanes africaines: des espaces en mutation, des acteurs face à de nouveaux défis. Actes du colloque, mai 2002, Garoua, Cameroun Tonah, S. (2003) ‘Integration or exclusion of Fulbe pastoralists in West Africa: a comparative analysis of interethnic relations, state and local policies in Ghana and Cote d’Ivoire’ Journal Of Modern African Studies 41(1): 91–114 Trémolières, M. (2010) ‘Sécurité et variables environnementales: Débat et analyse des liens au Sahel. Projet Incidences sécuritaires du changement climatique au Sahel’. Paris: CSAO Tubiana, J. (2009) ‘Lire entre les lignes d’un conflit’ Afrique contemporaine (4): 75–95 Turner, M.D. (2004) ‘Political ecology and the moral dimensions of “resource conflicts”: the case of farmer– herder conflicts in the Sahel’ Political Geography 23(7): 863–889 (www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S0962629804000654) Turner, M.D., Ayantunde, A.A., Patterson, K.P. and Patterson, E.D. (2011) ‘Livelihood transitions and the changing nature of farmer–herder conflict in Sahelian West Africa’ Journal of Development Studies 47(2): 183–206 Uwizeyimana, L. (2007) ‘Rôle politique de la caféiculture au Rwanda’ Études rurales 180: 171–186 Vall, É., Dugué, P. and Blanchard, M. (2006) ‘Le tissage des relations agriculture-élevage au fil du coton’ Cahiers Agricultures 15(1): 72–79 Vall, E., Salgado, P., Corniaux, C., Blanchard, M., Dutilly, C. and Alary, V. (2014) ‘Changements et innovations dans les systèmes d’élevage en Afrique’ INRA Productions Animales 27(2): 161–174 WANEP – West Africa Network for Peacebuilding (2020) ‘Atténuer les conflits agropastoraux en Afrique de l’Ouest: la nécessité de revisiter les moyens d’actions pour l’application effective des recommandations’. Rapport thématique. Accra: WANEP Zakinet, D. (2015) ‘Des pasteurs transhumants entre alliances et conflits au Tchad’ Afrique contemporaine 3: 127–143 42 SPARC Causes of farmer–herder conflicts in Africa ANNEX 2: PROTOCOL FOR THE SCOPING REVIEW Rationale Previous research has suggested links between conflict and land and resource use, land and resource tenure security and governance. We want to explore some of these linkages further. Aim The aim of this systematic scoping review is to explore academic literature on farmer– herder conflicts eliciting trends and potential gaps and biases and the presentation of these conflicts, particularly their causes. As part of this we want to ascertain to what degree land tenure insecurity has been included as a cause and how. Research What does academic literature say about the causes of farmer–herder conflicts in question Africa? What are the trends, biases and research gaps in this literature? Is land tenure insecurity featured as a cause and if yes, how is it presented? Population Farmers and herders (and similar terms to these including smallholders and pastoralists) Interest Trends in academic literature on farmer–herder conflicts. How the literature presents the causes of farmer–herder conflicts and whether land tenure insecurity is included. Other interesting aspects such as inclusion of women and youth in this literature. Boolean search string used: (farmer OR smallholder OR settler) AND (pastoralist OR herder OR nomad) AND conflict AND (Africa OR Sahel) Context Africa sparc-knowledge.org 43 ANNEX 3: FULL LIST OF KEYWORDS USED IN ANALYSIS Tenure insecurity Tenure insecurity Blocked or limited access Tenure insecurity Insecure access to (farming and grazing Land tenure insecurity resources; food, farming and grazing resources) Absence of tenure security Unequal access to pastoralist resources Lack of tenure security Limited access rights Loss of tenure security Limited water access Land insecurity Lack of access to pasture Insecurity of land tenure Access to key spaces is lost Insecurity of tenure Access to pastoral land has often been lost Weak tenure rights Access to wetlands is decreasing Weak tenure security Block the pastoralists’ movement and access Tenure inequity to pastures Tenure uncertainty Blocked resource access for herders and Loss of tenure farmers Weakening of tenure Blocking of livestock corridors Weak land tenure Blocking seasonal transhumance corridors Constraint on livestock mobility Expropriation Land grab Block traditional migration routes Expropriation Maintain access to water Expropriate Limited access to land Land is confiscated Blocking of grazing routes Lands confiscated Barriers to land use and access Evicting farmers (or evicting) Changes to land use and resource access Vulnerable to dispossession Limited amount of land set aside for grazing Green grabbing Routes and areas around waterholes being obstructed Land appropriation Access to waterholes is blocked Elite land acquisition Blockage of livestock corridors Land alienation Blocking of transhumance 44 SPARC Causes of farmer–herder conflicts in Africa Livestock corridors occupation Grievances against the established land tenure Blocking of water system dominated by farmer communities Reduction in areas and accessibility Both seek access to the region’s fertile land Lack of access to land Competition for access to natural resources Lack of access to grazing About access to strategic resources at specific moments of the year Lack of access to water Problems over land tenure Risk of losing land and access to resources Growing tension over access to land and its use Tenure disputes Struggle for control over access to land Complexities of land tenure Tenure dispute Land tenure conflict Insecure land rights Struggle for control over land Difficulties policing their rights Struggles over control Insufficient pastoral land rights Quest for land Prevents the establishment of the new Struggles over access resource access rights that are badly needed Disagreement over the ownership and by transhumant herders cultivation of fields Insecure land rights Disputes over the ownership and use of land Problems with land distribution Contention over rights of access and use of Historical grievances regarding land key water and grazing resources distribution and access Disputed understandings of property Distribution of resource tenure rights relations Contest over herders’ right to graze and the farmers’ right to farm Scarcity Resource scarcity Scarce natural resources Resource scarcity Pastureland has become scarcer Natural resource scarcity Shrinking natural resources Scarce resources Limited resources Scarcity of grazing, land and water Limited arable and grazing land Environmental scarcity Limited arable/grazing land Land scarcity Lack of water Scarcity of land Insufficient grazing resources Scarcity of natural resources Don’t have enough water Farm/grass land scarcity Lack of grass Arable land has become scarce Limited grazing resources sparc-knowledge.org 45 Shortage of water Soil degradation Lack of grazing Deteriorating environmental conditions Land shortage Land shortage and degradation Lack of pasture Land degradation Degradation Environmental change Environmental degradation Environmental change Rangeland degradation Environmental insecurity Climate-induced degradation of pasture Poor governance Policies, institutions and processes Poor and exclusive governance system A policy context that stimulates land-use Failed land governance change and/or conflicts in use Poor leadership and governance Failure of political leadership Gaps in governance Political instability Governance fails Policy – biases for or against certain Failing and exclusive (local) governance groups system Partial postcolonial policy Exclusionary governance State policy biases Biased local governance Anti-pastoral environment Weak or non-existent governance structures Anti-pastoral policy environment Weakened local and national governance Official bias against pastoralists Weak governance Anti-pastoral policy Poor governance Laws which undermine pastoral production Failure of governance systems Absence of governance Biased agro-pastoral policies of the colonial and post-colonial governments Biased governance Agro-pastoral policies that favoured Fulani Policy – general problems National policies and laws focusing on Weak land tenure policy agricultural modernisation Weak and changing policies on land rights Anti-grazing law Changes in land tenure laws Grazing ban Modernisation policies Open grazing prohibition Irrational land-use policies Herder unfriendly national policies Weak policy and institutional frameworks Policy bias Presence of policies Biased policy Absence of clear rules 46 SPARC Causes of farmer–herder conflicts in Africa Policy – pluralism Biased institutions Legal pluralism Institutional bias Overlapping land-use rights Process – changes in the livestock sector Given the same rights Absentee herd owner Competing authorities New patterns of cattle ownership Concurrence of customary and formal laws Increase in the value of cattle Overlapping rights Early herd arrival Institutions – weak or biased institutions Changes in livestock mobility patterns Inability of the elders to manage this in- Shifts in livestock ownership migration High financial value of cattle Eroded traditional authorities Disappearance of socio-professional Institutional weakness specialisation Institutional failure Process – modernisation Decline of traditional mediation mechanisms Modernisation of the livestock industry Farmers control local governing bodies Agricultural modernisation (modernisation) Partiality of state officials and traditional Modernisation ideology leaders in resolving conflict Failure of the federal government to Process – bias prosecute Priority to agricultural development at the Inadequate government protection expense of pastoralism Ambiguity around how formal and informal Favouring agriculture institutions interact Promotion of agriculture Weakening of community based dispute Favour agriculture management Favour of agricultural development Weak community based dispute Favoured agriculture management Favour of settled communities Deterioration of systems to resolve these conflicts Favouring agriculture Customary authorities were much weakened Favouring farmers Declining influence of traditional rules Favour crop production Failure of indigenous conflict resolution Process – commercialisation and Ineffective law enforcement privatisation Ineffective security and law and order Capitalism Eroded traditional institutions Marketisation Weak institution Commodification Decline of traditional Commoditisation Weakened traditional Value driven land market transactions Commercialisation of agricultural sparc-knowledge.org 47 Land commercialisation Disappearance of grazing resources Increasing commercialisation Shrinking and disappearance of Private landownership transhumance corridors Individualisation of land rights Large-scale conversions of dry season pastures Economic interests Burning of pasture land Market liberalisation Loss of pasture resources Commercialisation of crop residues Reduction in areas and accessibility Economic opportunities have changed dramatically Water and grazing have been lost to competing land use Private land ownership Grazing areas have been lost Process – land-use change and effects Encroachment on farmlands Land-use change Room for grazing reserves and migration Rapid land-use change corridors has decreased Land cover change Process – absence of accountability Large-scale agricultural development Persistence of impunity Large-scale commercial agriculture Impunity Agricultural encroachment Process – politicisation Expansion of agricultural land Politicisation Expansion of agriculture Political and ethnic manipulation Expansion of commercial agriculture Political manipulation Agricultural expansion Patronage Expansion of cultivated areas Political calculations Steady expansion of (agricultural fields; the Politicisation of ethnicity agricultural frontier) Social and institutional manipulation Expansion of farms and settlements Politicise/politicize Expansion of crop land Government connivance Farming across cattle routes Manipulation of the sociopolitical diversity of Cultivate on cattle corridor communities Expansion of cropped fields Social manipulation of ethno-religious biases Unregulated expansion of agricultural land Diversity has been manipulated and exploited Expansion of land under cultivation by various actors Field enlargement Instrumentalisation of identities Encroachment upon grazing grounds Political struggles to maintain control Encroachment on key pastures Orchestrated actions for higher political Loss of key pastures purposes Loss of key dry season grazing Manipulation for political gain 48 SPARC Causes of farmer–herder conflicts in Africa Political interests Process – inequality Complicity Inequality Process – marginalisation Unequal representation Pastoral marginalisation Structural inequalities Marginalising pastoralists Economic inequalities Marginalised; marginalized Growing social inequalities Marginalisation Social inequality Process – exclusion Process – power differentials Exclusion Power imbalances Exclude Power differences Exclusion of certain groups Uneven playing field Under representation of pastoralists ‘At the expense of’ (comes up often as a phrase – usually reflecting inequality) Neglecting pastoral grievances Lost power and wealth Years of neglect Power vacuum Lack of broader stakeholder consultation Political vacuum Limits local farmers and Fulani herders’ access to agro-pastoral decision-making Corruption Corruption Groups with interests in corrupt practices Corrupt Elite Corruption Influential elite Bribery Urban elite Rent-seeking Political and military elite Bribe Political elite Paying off judges Traditional elite Neopatrimonial Concealment of stolen funds Conceal stolen or illegally acquired assets Conceal illicit wealth sparc-knowledge.org 49 Pastoral mismanagement Mismanagement of land Too many livestock and pastoralists Mismanagement of land Large number of cattle and herders Mismanagement (must be checked in Large cattle holdings context) Large cattle herds Crop destruction Growth in human and animal populations Crop destruction Increase in cattle population Crop damage Increase in cattle numbers Destroying crops Growth in cattle numbers Destroy crops Human and livestock population growth Damage to farmers’ crops Rapid increase in number of herders Livestock invading farms Growing number of Fulani herders Destruction of crops Increasing number of herders Destruction of farms Massive herds Destruction of farmland Increased migration Crop and water bodies’ destruction Influx of thousands of cattle Damage of crops Altered the pattern of pastoralists’ migration Damage to crops Migrate Damage to fields Pastoralists from other counties come to Young herders failing to adequately supervise graze animals Acceleration of transhumance Overgrazing Influx of other unidentifiable Fulani Overgrazing pastoralists Overgraze Increased migration of pastoralists Over graze Immigration of herders south Indiscriminate grazing In-migration Inappropriate resource use Overstocking Overstocking Overstock 50 SPARC Causes of farmer–herder conflicts in Africa Deteriorating relationships and ethnic bias Deteriorating relationships Ethnic bias Deteriorating relationship Identity (must be checked in context) Deteriorating relations Ethnicity (must be checked in context) Broken relationship Identity discrimination Are deteriorating in ways Discrimination Fractured relations Cultural differences Worsening relations between farmers and Ethnic bias herders Ethnic difference Deterioration in relations Politics of belonging and citizenship Relations between farmers and herders have Cultural and ethnic differences deteriorated Entrenched prejudices Breakdown of trust Negative stereotypes Mistrust Citizenship construction of pastoralists Lack of trust Hardened anti-Fulani sentiment Loss of trust Fulani as objective and homogenous security Erode trust threats Mutual suspicion Herdsmen-farmer prejudices Deep suspicion Ethnicisation Breakdown of inter-communal trust Negative attitude Declining trust Sectarian narratives Lack of respect Deep identity-based divisions Herders did not respect farmers Dividing communities along ethno-religious Not respected lines Little respect Negative labels Outsider Animosity Animosity Stranger Hostility increased Migrant Foreigner Fear Alien Afraid of pastoralists Intruder Fear Unaddressed grievances Sense of injustice Inter-communal grievances sparc-knowledge.org 51 Historical grievances Historical grievance Colonialisation Historical grievances Colonialisation Histor* (keyword must be checked in context) Colonial Settling old scores Post colonial Population growth and displacement Population growth Population growth Population explosion Growth in population Population expansion Increasing population Growth in human and animal populations Rising human and cattle populations Human and livestock population growth Displacement Growing population Large-scale and long-distance displacement Violence and resultant human insecurity Broader violence unrelated to farmer– Chronic instability pastoralist conflict Pastoralist militia Regional conflict Criminality Terrorism Violent extremism Terrorist Insurgent Cattle raiding Increased cattle rustling Insurgency Cattle rustling Counterinsurgency Small-scale stock theft Organised crime Cattle raiding Banditry Cattle raid Extremist Raiding Recruit Livestock theft Armed groups Cattle theft Increasing violence in the country’s far north Cattle stealing Growth of ethnic militias Rustling Rise of militias Theft of herds Criminal groups Bandit violence Human insecurity 52 SPARC Causes of farmer–herder conflicts in Africa Crowded here because of insecurity Weapons proliferation Negative effects of protracted conflict and Arms instability Weapons Limitations on pastoral mobility due to Arms proliferation security concerns Proliferation of small arms Availability of illicit firearms Climate change Climate change Drought Climate change Changes in precipitation Changing climate Patterns of rainfall had changed Other descriptions of climate Rainfall patterns have changed Climate variability Climate-induced Climatic variability Climate insecurity Variable climate Climate security Desertification sparc-knowledge.org 53 @SPARC_Ideas sparc-knowledge.org Cover: © Mercy Corps – transformed from the original via horizontal flip Funded by This material has been funded by UK aid from the UK government; however the views expressed do not necessarily reflect the UK government’s official policies.