Connect with us

Published

2 years ago

on

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. 

Cross-border climate risks can’t be solved in isolation

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

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Climate Change

New Zealand moves to protect business with law curtailing climate litigation

Published

1 day ago

on

August 24, 2026

By

New Zealand’s parliament has adopted a controversial new law blocking a whole avenue of climate litigation and shutting down its most advanced corporate lawsuit, which has been blamed by the government for shaking business confidence and investment.

The Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill, expected to take effect in the coming days after it is formally signed by the Governor-General, prevents all current and future civil claims for climate loss or harm under tort law.

Justice minister Paul Goldsmith said last week that the aim was to give businesses “certainty around their climate change obligations”, noting it would not alter the government’s responsibilities under the Climate Change Response Act 2002 nor business obligations under the Emissions Trading Scheme.

“Our response to climate change is best managed by the Government at a national level and not through piece-meal litigation in the courts,” he added in a statement.

Such litigation, he said, “risks developing a new regime that contradicts the framework Parliament has already enacted” to tackle climate change.

    Goldsmith singled out a key domestic climate lawsuit brought by Northland iwi leader and activist Mike Smith against six big companies: dairy firms Fonterra and Dairy Holdings, energy firms Genesis Energy and Z Energy, New Zealand Steel and coal mining firm BT Mining. A seventh original defendant, Channel Infrastructure, was dropped after it permanently decommissioned its Marsden Point oil refinery.

    Smith argued that these companies had caused him harm under public nuisance and negligence law, as well as a third breach of a duty to cease contributing to climate change that has yet to be tested domestically. He did not seek financial compensation, instead asking for the companies to immediately stop emitting or contributing to net greenhouse gas emissions.

    In one of the most advanced corporate climate accountability lawsuits in the world, a trial had been scheduled for April 2027 after the Supreme Court unanimously allowed the case to continue.

    Corporate lobbying in the shadows

    Smith described the passing of the bill as “deeply concerning”, particularly as it coincided with the Supreme Court hearing another of his climate lawsuits. In that case, Smith v Attorney-General, he argues that the government’s response to climate change and its impacts on Māori communities in particular breaches rights to life and culture.

    “That timing raises profound questions about the separation of powers and the rule of law,” said Smith. “Whatever one’s view of the merits of these cases, it is deeply troubling when parliament intervenes to remove a legal pathway while the courts are actively considering fundamental questions about climate responsibility, rights and the crown’s obligations.”

    The bill – which says that no person (including the government) can be found liable in tort for emissions-related climate change effects – followed major lobbying efforts by the companies defending themselves in Smith’s lawsuit. They outlined a proposed legal amendment in a briefing note to the government in 2024.

    The centre-right government has been fiercely criticised over its lack of transparency in relation to this lobbying activity. The national ombudsman recently found that the Prime Minister’s Office effectively withheld information requested by the Environmental Law Initiative about meetings, discussions and conversations regarding Smith’s case.

    Green groups fail to stop bill

    The bill sparked huge concern among environmental campaigners in New Zealand and elsewhere. Greenpeace Aotearoa called it a “shocking abuse of executive power” and the vast majority of submissions to a parliamentary inquiry said it should be rejected.

    But in the end, it was adopted with little resistance, moving relatively smoothly through parliament, passing its third reading by 67 votes to 53. Sam Bookman, climate law lecturer at Melbourne Law School, told Climate Home News he was not surprised by this, given that the coalition government has a secure majority.

    A complaint has been made to the UN special rapporteur on climate change and human rights by Smith, the National Iwi Chairs Forum Pou Tikanga and youth coalition Climate Clinic Aotearoa over what they see as the government’s heavy-handed approach. Smith is also challenging the new law in yet another lawsuit.

    “Pathetic”: New Zealand plans to barely cut emissions between 2030 and 2035

    Bookman thinks it “very unlikely” that such a challenge will succeed, noting that New Zealand’s constitution is firmly anchored in parliamentary sovereignty.

    But the expert in climate law does not see the bill as the end of legal action in the country, noting that New Zealand has a “sophisticated climate litigation landscape with a growing number of specialist and experienced lawyers and NGOs”.

    The country is also approaching its next general election in November, and some opposition parties have pledged to restore access to the courts if elected.

    Amanda Larsson, global project lead on agriculture for Greenpeace International, said: “This law deserves to be tested, and I strongly encourage the international climate litigation community to unite and help defend New Zealanders’ fundamental right to hold polluters accountable before this becomes a global blueprint.”

    Copycat legislation on the rise

    New Zealand’s move is part of a small but growing legislative effort to shut down climate litigation around the world.

    In the US, Republican politicians introduced legislation in the House and Senate in April that would shield fossil fuel firms from climate liability lawsuits. Similar laws have already been passed at state level in Tennessee, Utah, Iowa and Louisiana.

    The German state of Bavaria has put forward a similar proposal to the Federal Council, aiming to block private climate claims as well as the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments imposing such liability. There are also proposals to limit available remedies and actions in the Netherlands and Belgium.

    UN General Assembly backs “climate obligations” set by world’s top court

    Bookman said he expects more efforts to counter climate damages litigation and advised plaintiffs to think about how to respond, including drawing on broader support in opposing them.

    “Even though it’s very hard for plaintiffs to win these types of cases, companies are very eager to avoid the expense, embarrassment and political accountability that come even with unsuccessful lawsuits,” he said.

    The post New Zealand moves to protect business with law curtailing climate litigation appeared first on Climate Home News.

    New Zealand moves to protect business with law curtailing climate litigation

    Continue Reading

    Climate Change

    Indonesia’s nickel production cuts are not enough to create a sustainable industry 

    Published

    1 day ago

    on

    August 24, 2026

    By

    Bhima Yudhistira Adhinegara is the Executive Director of the Center of Economic and Law Studies (CELIOS), an Indonesia-based economic think tank. Muhammad Zulfikar Rakhmat is the Director of the China-Indonesia desk at CELIOS. 

    Indonesia produces around 60% of the world’s nickel, a metal used to manufacture batteries for electric vehicles (EVs) – more than any other country in the world. But in 2026, the government sharply reduced how much of its nickel can be extracted from the ground.

    Production quotas were reduced by around 40% this year compared to 2025. Weda Bay, the largest nickel mine on Earth, had its allowance cut by more than 70% and exhausted its full-year quota by the end of May, halting mining entirely; it cannot resume large-scale extraction until next year unless regulators grant an extension.

    The policy has sparked a vivid debate in Indonesian policy circles: how can the country shift its strategy from a decade of mining vast quantities of cheap nickel to producing a high-value and low-carbon material that the rest of the world wants for EV batteries.

    The cuts aren’t a silver bullet to clean up Indonesia’s nickel industry, whose smelters are powered by coal – the most polluting fossil fuels. But alongside stricter enforcement of environmental rules, it is one side of efforts to produce more sustainable nickel for a premium.

    Restricting Indonesia’s nickel output

    Production quotas were introduced to stop the collapse of nickel prices because of oversupply in the market. Prices had fallen more than 40% in 2023 alone and kept sliding as Indonesian supply kept growing, hitting a four-year low of around $13,900 a ton in late 2025.

    Critics called the recent tightening of production quotas proof that Indonesia’s nickel strategy has failed, arguing that the industry shouldn’t need to throttle its own output to survive. But when assessed against what the policy was supposed to do – push up nickel prices – it has worked. Prices jumped to $20,000 a ton in May, the highest since 2024.

      Chinese industry groups representing companies that have invested billions to mine and refine the country’s nickel were furious, warning Indonesia’s president Prabowo Subianto that the cuts put $50 billion worth of investment at risk. But much of that Chinese capital is sunk into smelters and processing plants built specifically to run on Indonesian ore, and cannot simply be moved elsewhere. That gives Jakarta more room to hold its ground than the warning suggests.

      Stronger environmental enforcement

      Since the start of the year, Indonesia’s forestry task force has seized more than four million hectares of land from mines and plantations operating illegally in protected forests, collecting over two trillion rupiah ($113 million) in fines.

      This included 148 hectares seized from Weda Bay for lacking a forestry permit. The share of nickel produced from illegal small-scale mining also fell from about a quarter in 2022 to roughly 10% by 2024.

      The crackdown responds to serious environmental damages in the nickel industry. On Obi Island, a waste pond collapsed after heavy rain in June 2025, flooding three villages and killing a resident. Internal company tests found chromium-6 – a carcinogen – in the water, in quantities far above the legal limit. The footprint of another mine near Raja Ampat, which is home to some of the world’s richest coral reefs, grew 60-fold in just eight years.

      A coastal village is wedged between the sea and a large nickel mine in Indonesia
      The fishing villages of Tapunggaya in Sulawesi, Indonesia, are squeezed between the sea and an expanding nickel mine (Photo by Garry Lotulung/NurPhoto)

      The market is responding to early cleanup efforts. Low-carbon nickel now sells for a real premium, roughly $18,800 to $19,300 a ton compared with $17,900 to $18,300 otherwise, as carmakers seek to source cleaner materials to comply with the European Union’s new emissions rules for imports.

      In turn, this is incentivising the industry to do more to green its operations. Vale Indonesia’s smelter in South Sulawesi now runs almost entirely on hydropower, for example.

      None of this addresses coal use, however. Major Indonesian nickel producers still emitted an estimated 15 million metric tons of greenhouse gases in 2023. Indonesia may be cracking down on illegal mining and rewarding cleaner producers but it is still running its mines on the dirtiest fuel available.

      Unequal benefits

      For Indonesia to truly benefit from producing cleaner and high-value nickel, it needs to reap the economic benefits too. Although the industry has boosted the country’s economic growth, the reality on the ground tells a different story.

      Konawe in Southeast Sulawesi is home to a major smelting complex. Growth in the district jumped from 6% to 22% between 2015 and 2023, driven almost entirely by the nickel industry, according to a study by the Lowy Institute study. At the same time, poverty levels increased slightly and unemployment remained unchanged.

        In Halmahera, another epicentre of the nickel industry, spending by the poorest fifth grew just 5% between 2019 and 2022, compared with 28% for the wealthiest fifth, according to a separate study.

        Part of the reason for this inequality is the system for transferring mining royalties to district authorities where the mines are located. In theory, they are entitled to the largest share. But in practice, payments are delayed, companies routinely dispute what they owe and royalties are pooled and distributed across a larger area.

        The Natural Resource Governance Institute has found that decentralisation handed local governments power to approve new mines faster than they could build their capacity to manage them. Higher output raises national income on paper, but local governments remain constrained by fiscal rules and infrastructure costs that scale with mining.

        None of this makes the 2026 quota cuts a mistake. Indonesia has every right to defend its pricing power over a resource it controls. But limiting extraction isn’t going to fix underlying issues around environmental enforcement and revenue-sharing. That requires rules that are consistently enforced, royalties that reach communities living by the mines, and a plan to wean smelters off coal.

        The post Indonesia’s nickel production cuts are not enough to create a sustainable industry  appeared first on Climate Home News.

        Indonesia’s nickel production cuts are not enough to create a sustainable industry 

        Continue Reading

        Climate Change

        Risk of “catastrophic” oil spill reaching Kimberley coast found in Woodside’s Scott Reef gas drilling plans

        Published

        1 day ago

        on

        August 24, 2026

        By

        SYDNEY, Monday 24 August 2026 – New analysis of Woodside modelling released by Greenpeace Australia Pacific and Environs Kimberley has revealed the oil and gas corporation’s plans to drill at Scott Reef could cause an oil spill up to 30 times bigger than the 2009 Montara disaster, impacting the Kimberley coastline and reaching as far as Indonesia.

        The new analysis details the “catastrophic” oil spill risk put to environmental regulators for approval by Woodside in its Browse to North West Shelf Project (Browse) plans, the worst-case scenario being a blowout directly below Scott Reef, polluting whale migratory pathways and covering isolated turtle nesting ground with oil condensate.

        An FOI application (F348) revealed the federal environment department (DCCEEW) asked offshore oil and gas regulator NOPSEMA to look into the oil spill risk in 2025. NOPSEMA’s response to the application refused access to its report, and one document shows DCCEEW sought further advice this year.

        Greenpeace and Environs Kimberley are calling on the Federal Government to publicly release the NOPSEMA report given the risk of an uncontrolled release of oil condensate from directly below Scott Reef.

        Hannah Schuch, Senior Campaigner at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said: “Woodside is aware that drilling at Scott Reef risks a massive oil spill that would have severe, far-reaching consequences. It appears environmental regulators are aware too.

        “The state and federal governments need to take this risk from Woodside’s drilling plans seriously, as they could end up allowing the worst oil spill in Australian history.

        “The pygmy blue whales that migrate up and down the WA coast with their newborns each year could be swimming and feeding in toxic, oil-slicked water. Woodside’s proposal to drill at Scott Reef is an environmental disaster waiting to happen, and the WA and federal governments have one surefire way to prevent catastrophe — reject Browse.”

        Martin Prichard, Executive Director at Environs Kimberley, said: “A catastrophic oil spill by Woodside would be disastrous not just for marine life in the area but also for the Kimberley’s $500 million tourism industry.

        “The state and federal governments will see five marine parks on the Kimberley coast included in the risk area of a catastrophic Woodside oil spill.

        “The Montara oil spill was disastrous for West Timor with the toxic oil destroying seaweed farmers’ livelihoods. The Kimberley dodged a bullet with Montara, we were lucky the spill didn’t head our way. Myself and a crew flew over the Montara oil spill and followed it as far as we could. It was like a scene from a disaster movie.”

        After the WA Environmental Protection Authority deemed Browse “unacceptable” due, in part, to oil spill risk, Woodside submitted a mitigation plan based on technology that has never been used “in anger”, a weakness stated in an independent expert review of the plan.

        Professor Richard Steiner, independent oil spill expert, said: “A large offshore spill is impossible to effectively contain or recover. Historically, only 2-6% of total spill volume is recovered and the ecological injury from the release of toxic hydrocarbons in the sea can be severe, extensive, and long-term.

        “Here in Alaska, government research concludes that several marine populations injured by the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill, including whales, fish, and seabirds, are still not recovering today, 37 years later. We should expect similar long-term ecological impacts in Western Australia if there were to be a major oil spill. The only sure way to avoid the risk of a catastrophic marine oil spill is to not develop oil and gas projects in marine environments.”

        -ENDS-

        Media contact

        Emma Sangalli on emma.sangalli@greenpeace.org or 0431 513 465

        Risk of “catastrophic” oil spill reaching Kimberley coast found in Woodside’s Scott Reef gas drilling plans

        Continue Reading

        Trending

        Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com