In Africa, pastoralism is serious business.
There are an estimated 200-300 million pastoralists – livestock herders – who provide the continent with 75% of its milk and half of its meat. In some countries, the trade can make up more than one-third of GDP.
It might seem surprising then that this vital sector doesn’t have a stronger political voice and that its concerns are not a major priority for many governments. Yet it has long been the case that nomadic groups of herders are likely to be marginalised more than other food producers – or even ignored.
The centuries-old practice of pastoralism now faces a constellation of threats that are pushing some communities permanently out of business. In some places, the long-term viability of pastoralism is at risk, buffeted by multiple, overlapping factors – both related to climate change, and unconnected to it.
Conflict concerns
Pastoralists make a living by raising animals – including goats, cattle and sheep – and move with their herds across vast distances between seasons. Historically, they have enjoyed a resilient and adaptive lifestyle, allowing them to travel where the weather and grazing conditions are most favourable and avoiding disease and potential disasters.
The practice also has environmental benefits – periodic grazing improves soil health and prevents the land and vegetation from becoming degraded while improving biodiversity.
The problem facing pastoralists today is that their livelihood has come into direct competition with a range of public and private interests. More and more land traditionally used by herders is being given over to other uses: large-scale commercial farming, mining or energy operations, urbanisation and even conservation areas.
These are often the economic priorities of national governments, which see them as more productive, and so hand farmers and companies stronger rights to manage the land. This puts them in conflict with pastoralists who are forced to graze their livestock on someone else’s land – in some cases leading to violence.
Thousands of deaths have been reported in West and Central Africa over the past decade as a result of this kind of conflict. Clashes are particularly prominent in Nigeria, Mali and Burkina Faso, where tensions cross ethnic, religious and social lines.
In Nigeria – home to some of the worst fighting – state governments have enacted controversial anti-grazing laws which they claim are designed to prevent further fatalities. Pastoralist groups have pushed back, arguing that the legal restrictions reflect a longstanding bias against nomadic herders and will make it even harder for them to earn a living.
Despite agreements to allow the free movement of herders, some countries in West Africa have closed their borders, citing the prevalence of livestock disease. With smaller areas of land to graze on and migratory routes closed off, pastoralists are being boxed into a corner.
Climate risk
Climate change serves to pile on the pressure. Persistent drought, more intense rainfall and extreme temperatures are creating difficult conditions for pastoralists. Many animals die on long treks with little water and less productive lands to graze on.
This creates the conditions for conflict with settled farmers – but on the ground, the situation is more complicated, experts say. Camille Laville, a research fellow at ODI Global, a London-based think tank, told Climate Home: “There is an oversimplification in our understanding between herder-farmer conflicts and the role of climate change.”
“We can start this discussion with the climate, but we can also start it with years of political changes, ethnic differences, religious differences. There are many ways to frame this subject and the climate is just one of them,” she added.
Aid agencies grapple with climate adaptation in fragile states
Climate change creates harsher conditions and increased vulnerabilities, but existing social and political factors weigh heavily on herders’ livelihoods.
Fiona Flintan, a senior scientist at the Nairobi-based International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), said “climate change may not be the biggest problem that pastoralists face”.
Among the many different users of land, pastoralists “as ‘masters’ (and ‘mistresses’) of adaptation can be the most resilient and skilled at adapting to climate change”, she added. But trouble can start to mount up when they aren’t given the right kind of support.
Flintan sees land security as the main gap for pastoralists. “If they have guaranteed security to their land and resources, they will be better positioned to deal with shocks and stresses,” she explained. “And more than that, pastoralists will then be willing to invest in their land to support biodiversity, soil health, and emissions reduction. It will resolve a lot of challenges.”
Yet, in many parts of Africa, obtaining secure access to the land is a complex process, and some national governments are more willing to recognise land rights than others.
Kenya’s Community Land Act, for example, offers pastoralists a route to seeing their land claims recognised and their rights protected. But the challenge in places like Kenya or Ethiopia – which has also adopted a Pastoral Development Policy – is defining in a legal context the unwritten customs and traditions of many different pastoral communities.
As Flintan notes, governments often lack resources and sometimes the technical expertise to prioritise land use strategies. “It’s about having proper planning and governance, supported by a skilled team and adequate funds in place to ensure it happens,” she said.
Greener pastures
Getting to the root cause of the challenges facing pastoralists could mean missing the urgency of more immediate problems, while difficulty in trying to untangle all of the interwoven factors could slow progress.
This complexity leads some researchers, such as Laville, to call for more practical responses, while accepting that there isn’t a perfect answer. “If we wait to fully understand this issue, we will never have sufficient time for action,” she said.
Some experts point to the need to raise the profile of pastoralists both within countries and on the international stage. The latest COP summit of the UN Convention to Combat Desertification is taking place in Saudi Arabia this month – reportedly the largest UN land-focused conference to date.
Can climate funders overcome fear to tread in conflict zones?
Marginalised groups often lack a voice at UN talks – and while pastoralist civil society organisations will be in Riyadh, they need a stronger presence at the negotiating table in order to be able to influence what is decided there, experts say.
“We are getting better at listening to herders, but we need to be cautious not to bring our own preconceptions to the discussion,” said Laville, commenting on the UN COP process. “There isn’t a one-size-fits-all approach to this problem.”
Scientists have argued for some time now that UN member states could benefit from pastoralists’ expertise in tackling emerging threats including biodiversity loss and global warming. Being open to learning from those who know the land intimately and how it is changing could pay practical dividends, they say.
Pastoralism is a livelihood that has lasted for generations and weathered many storms. The first step for any government is recognising the significant economic and environmental contributions it makes, researchers told Climate Home.
“It’s not a job; it’s a cultural identity. This doesn’t get eradicated by droughts or government policy,” added Flintan.
Sponsored by SPARC (Supporting Pastoralism and Agriculture in Recurrent and Protracted Crises), a six-year research programme that informs policies, practices and investments to better support the resilience of dryland communities in Africa and the Middle East.
Adam Wentworth is a freelance writer based in Brighton, UK.
The post The world is getting smaller for pastoralists facing multiple threats appeared first on Climate Home News.
The world is getting smaller for pastoralists facing multiple threats
Climate Change
A Tiny Caribbean Island Sued the Netherlands Over Climate Change, and Won
The case shows that climate change is a fundamental human rights violation—and the victory of Bonaire, a Dutch territory, could open the door for similar lawsuits globally.
From our collaborating partner Living on Earth, public radio’s environmental news magazine, an interview by Paloma Beltran with Greenpeace Netherlands campaigner Eefje de Kroon.
A Tiny Caribbean Island Sued the Netherlands Over Climate Change, and Won
Climate Change
Greenpeace organisations to appeal USD $345 million court judgment in Energy Transfer’s intimidation lawsuit
SYDNEY, Saturday 28 February 2026 — Greenpeace International and Greenpeace organisations in the US announce they will seek a new trial and, if necessary, appeal the decision with the North Dakota Supreme Court following a North Dakota District Court judgment today awarding Energy Transfer (ET) USD $345 million.

ET’s SLAPP suit remains a blatant attempt to silence free speech, erase Indigenous leadership of the Standing Rock movement, and punish solidarity with peaceful resistance to the Dakota Access Pipeline. Greenpeace International will also continue to seek damages for ET’s bullying lawsuits under EU anti-SLAPP legislation in the Netherlands.
Mads Christensen, Greenpeace International Executive Director said: “Energy Transfer’s attempts to silence us are failing. Greenpeace International will continue to resist intimidation tactics. We will not be silenced. We will only get louder, joining our voices to those of our allies all around the world against the corporate polluters and billionaire oligarchs who prioritise profits over people and the planet.
“With hard-won freedoms under threat and the climate crisis accelerating, the stakes of this legal fight couldn’t be higher. Through appeals in the US and Greenpeace International’s groundbreaking anti-SLAPP case in the Netherlands, we are exploring every option to hold Energy Transfer accountable for multiple abusive lawsuits and show all power-hungry bullies that their attacks will only result in a stronger people-powered movement.”
The Court’s final judgment today rejects some of the jury verdict delivered in March 2025, but still awards hundreds of millions of dollars to ET without a sound basis in law. The Greenpeace defendants will continue to press their arguments that the US Constitution does not allow liability here, that ET did not present evidence to support its claims, that the Court admitted inflammatory and irrelevant evidence at trial and excluded other evidence supporting the defense, and that the jury pool in Mandan could not be impartial.[1][2]
ET’s back-to-back lawsuits against Greenpeace International and the US organisations Greenpeace USA (Greenpeace Inc.) and Greenpeace Fund are clear-cut examples of SLAPPs — lawsuits attempting to bury nonprofits and activists in legal fees, push them towards bankruptcy and ultimately silence dissent.[3] Greenpeace International, which is based in the Netherlands, is pursuing justice in Europe, with a suit against ET under Dutch law and the European Union’s new anti-SLAPP directive, a landmark test of the new legislation which could help set a powerful precedent against corporate bullying.[4]
Kate Smolski, Program Director at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said: “This is part of a worrying trend globally: fossil fuel corporations are increasingly using litigation to attack and silence ordinary people and groups using the law to challenge their polluting operations — and we’re not immune to these tactics here in Australia.
“Rulings like this have a chilling effect on democracy and public interest litigation — we must unite against these silencing tactics as bad for Australians and bad for our democracy. Our movement is stronger than any corporate bully, and grows even stronger when under attack.”
Energy Transfer’s SLAPPs are part of a wave of abusive lawsuits filed by Big Oil companies like Shell, Total, and ENI against Greenpeace entities in recent years.[3] A couple of these cases have been successfully stopped in their tracks. This includes Greenpeace France successfully defeating TotalEnergies’ SLAPP on 28 March 2024, and Greenpeace UK and Greenpeace International forcing Shell to back down from its SLAPP on 10 December 2024.
-ENDS-
Images available in Greenpeace Media Library
Notes:
[1] The judgment entered by North Dakota District Court Judge Gion follows a jury verdict finding Greenpeace entities liable for more than US$660 million on March 19, 2025. Judge Gion subsequently threw out several items from the jury’s verdict, reducing the total damages to approximately US$345 million.
[2] Public statements from the independent Trial Monitoring Committee
[3] Energy Transfer’s first lawsuit was filed in federal court in 2017 under the RICO Act – the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a US federal statute designed to prosecute mob activity. The case was dismissed in 2019, with the judge stating the evidence fell “far short” of what was needed to establish a RICO enterprise. The federal court did not decide on Energy Transfer’s claims based on state law, so Energy Transfer promptly filed a new case in a North Dakota state court with these and other state law claims.
[4] Greenpeace International sent a Notice of Liability to Energy Transfer on 23 July 2024, informing the pipeline giant of Greenpeace International’s intention to bring an anti-SLAPP lawsuit against the company in a Dutch Court. After Energy Transfer declined to accept liability on multiple occasions (September 2024, December 2024), Greenpeace International initiated the first test of the European Union’s anti-SLAPP Directive on 11 February 2025 by filing a lawsuit in Dutch court against Energy Transfer. The case was officially registered in the docket of the Court of Amsterdam on 2 July, 2025. Greenpeace International seeks to recover all damages and costs it has suffered as a result of Energy Transfers’s back-to-back, abusive lawsuits demanding hundreds of millions of dollars from Greenpeace International and the Greenpeace organisations in the US. The next hearing in the Court of Amsterdam is scheduled for 16 April, 2026.
Media contact:
Kate O’Callaghan on 0406 231 892 or kate.ocallaghan@greenpeace.org
Climate Change
Former EPA Staff Detail Expanding Pollution Risks Under Trump
The Trump administration’s relentless rollback of public health and environmental protections has allowed widespread toxic exposures to flourish, warn experts who helped implement safeguards now under assault.
In a new report that outlines a dozen high-risk pollutants given new life thanks to weakened, delayed or rescinded regulations, the Environmental Protection Network, a nonprofit, nonpartisan group of hundreds of former Environmental Protection Agency staff, warns that the EPA under President Donald Trump has abandoned the agency’s core mission of protecting people and the environment from preventable toxic exposures.
Former EPA Staff Detail Expanding Pollution Risks Under Trump
-
Greenhouse Gases7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
