Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The two main theoretical approaches to study the farmer–herder conflicts (FHCs) in Africa, namely, environmental security (ES) and political ecology (PE), demonstrate theoretical disagreement. This review proposes that the disagreement between the two approaches needs to be resolved, to account for the complexity of the conflicts. Notably, the resolution can benefit analysts and help them understand the conflicts comprehensively. This review contributes to the literature on FHCs, by integrating the aspects of ES and PE for analyzing the FHCs in a single framework. Particularly, this review reveals some of the factors that shape the conflicts. It uses assemblage thinking and actor–network theory, to incorporate the issues related to the PE and ES of conflicts, which are often ignored in either of these two perspectives previously, and develops a detailed FHC assemblage framework. This method allows us to provide a comprehensive analysis that does not downplay the essential details of the conflicts, which may have been ignored in previous studies.

Keywords

Actor–network theory assemblage thinking environmental security farmer–herder conflicts political ecology Africa

I. Introduction

Substantial disagreements exist between the two main approaches adopted for studying the farmer–herder conflicts (FHCs) in Africa: environmental security (ES) and political ecology (PE). The FHCs in Africa are not new and have evolved in recent years; various explanations for the conflicts have been proposed, extending across several disciplines of social sciences. According to the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP 2016), the conflicts claimed more than 2,500 deaths in Nigeria between 2012 and 2016, and by mid-2018, an additional 1,000 people died from the crisis and over 300,000 more were displaced (Amnesty International Nigeria 2018). However, the recent escalation of the conflicts has given rise to further theoretical explanations, including a ‘return to institutional’ analysis (Nwozor et al. 2021; Penu and Paalo 2021; Snorek 2021; Tade and Yikwabs 2020; Vanger and Nwosu 2020) and the emergence of a discursive turn (Chukwuma 2020; Eke 2020; Higazi 2016; Igwebuike 2021; Nwankwo 2020, 2021, 2022; Nwankwo 2020).

The study of FHCs is dominated by two perspectives: ES and PE, along with their associated ideologies. However, considerable incongruities exist between the two approaches. Both schools of thought on the FHCs share the attention to nature and environmental change along with the multi-dimensional and multi-scalar nature of the conflicts. However, the analyses of the FHCs from the perspective of PE typically reject the effects of population growth, resource scarcity and environmental determinism on the conflicts (generally emphasized by ES) (e.g., Benjaminsen, Maganga and Abdallah 2009; Benjaminsen and Ba 2009, 2019, 2021; Bergius et al. 2020; Walwa 2017, 2020). The approach of rejecting the effects of resource scarcity and environmental change is adopted in the PE of the FHCs and is not applicable for the entire field of PE. Denying resource scarcity, especially when caused by or related to climate change, results in ignoring the vital elements of social and political-economic realities. In the dry land of West Africa and the Sahel Belt, climate change–induced desertification has negatively impacted water resources in the region, forcing pastoralists to migrate further south, making farmers struggle with the herders for wetland access. Recognizing the role of resource scarcity in the FHCs from the perspective of PE can render credence to the agential roles of the natural forces behind it. Notably, it is important to account for the climate and atmospheric systems in the region and consider the changes in these systems. This approach acknowledges the historical and political-economic foundations of the conflicts, portraying that the historical development of rich nations can threaten the lives and livelihood of millions of poor people in developing regions.

This review proposes that it is possible to resolve the tension between the two approaches (ES and PE) using a single framework that embraces the core values of both approaches by incorporating assemblage thinking (AST) and using actor–network theory (ANT). The review is structured into six parts. Section I explains the background of the work. Section II presents the arguments for the literature on the FHCs related to ES; Section III presents the arguments for the literature on the FHCs related to PE. Section IV presents the debates surrounding post-human PE to promote post-human FHC studies. Section V discusses the potential of AST and ANT to advance the literature related to the ES and PE aspects of the FHCs. Section VI attempts to reconcile the ES and PE discourses of the FHCs, by combining AST and ANT. Through this review, I address the issues concerning the PE and ES of FHCs.

II. Environmental security perspective of the FHCs in Africa

The idea of ES stemmed from post-Cold War studies that investigated the links between ecological conditions and regional conflicts, particularly those in impoverished regions. A group of scholars led by Homer-Dixon (1994, 1999) labelled such conflicts as ‘eco-violence’, as they emerge from the interaction between population growth and the environment. Population growth puts pressure on environmental resources and leads to resource scarcity. They argue that this situation forces people to migrate away from areas of resource scarcity and encounter groups of different ethnicities, which may result in conflicts owing to the uneven distribution of resources in the new region (Bächler 1999; Homer-Dixon 1999; Schwartz, Deligiannis and Homer-Dixon 2001).

Earlier studies showed a direct association between a shortage of natural resources and pastoral struggles (Homer-Dixon 2010; Markakis 1997; Mkutu 2001). Kevane and Gray (2008) indicate that an environmentally caused famine will likely lead to disputes in an area that is already affected by poverty and has no capacity to respond economically or physically. Meier, Bond and Bond (2007, 716) indicate that conflict ‘aggravating behaviour, along with a reduction in peace initiatives and reciprocal exchanges, is associated with an escalation in pastoral conflict, particularly when coupled with an increase in vegetation that may provide cover for organized raids’. In East Africa, Raleigh and Kniveton (2012) indicate that in regions that experience insurgence or communal strife, the frequency of such episodes increases when there is a significant variation (increase or decrease) in rainfall. Some scholars argue that excess rain can cause raiding among pastoralists (Adano and Witsenburg 2008; Meier, Bond and Bond 2007). This is supported by work from Hsiang, Burke and Miguel (2013) who conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis and suggested that elevated temperatures and excessive rainfall increase group disputes.

The concept that environmental conditions significantly contribute to pastoralist disputes has often been challenged (Raleigh, Jordan and Salehyan 2008). O’Loughlin et al. (2012) stated that although the correlations between temperature and violence are statistically significant, the correlation can only marginally affect the prediction of violence, especially when considering political, economic and physical geographical elements. Ayana et al. (2016) propose that precipitation levels and vegetation cannot explain the conflicts among the East-African herders; they explain that the reaction of pastoralists to such environmental pressures can determine conflict development. The herders who take care of drought-resistant animals, such as camels, can withstand dry spells better than those who take care of cattle or small ruminants. If the amount of rain and vegetation in an area diminishes over an extended period, it could exhaust every one of the techniques available to the people who breed animals for nourishment and fibre; this can decrease their reaction time to new ecological issues.

The critics of the ES approach argue that it tends to focus heavily on the ecological factors in conflict and does not consider the strong impact that patronage politics, unequal resources and access across a nation can have on marginalization and political exclusion (e.g., Barnett 2000; Hartmann 2014; Lind 2003). Despite the criticism, recent studies on ES conducted for understanding the FHCs in Africa reveal that the disputes stem from a complex combination of socio-ecological, demographic and climate-change elements. Otu and Impraim (2021) indicate that even though the idea of resource scarcity is criticized, it provides a reasonable explanation for the recent increase in the disputes in Ghana with the growth in human and herd populations. Otu, Impraim and Twumhene (2020) study in the Afram Plains illustrate how the increase in the number of humans and animals leads to farmers cultivating crops right up to the banks of Volta Lake all year round, limiting the access of herds to watering sources. The farmers limit the access of herds because the animals can damage the harvest when accessing water sources, thus, creating conflicts between farmers and herders.

Cabot (2017) suggests climate change could worsen land degradation, resulting in more frequent droughts in West Africa, which may result in the scarcity of common-pool resources and intensify the troubled relationship between the farmers and herders, potentially leading to conflicts between the two groups. Okoli and Ogayi (2018) argued that the herders’ violence in Central Nigeria is a survival strategy of the nomadic Fulani to cope with the socio-ecological circumstances of scarce water and pasture. Previous studies indicate that climate change has caused Northern Fulani herders to depart from their homes, owing to the increasing regional desertification, reduction in water availability for their animals (Madu and Nwankwo 2021; Onyema and Amujiri 2021); this deduction is supported by the human needs and ES theories (Ani and Uwizeyimana 2022). Political ecologists suggest that there are a variety of causes beyond environmental factors that shape the migratory behaviour of the Fulani pastoralists. They suggest that FulBe's¹ migration to southern West Africa is influenced by various factors, including cattle diseases, weather patterns, drought and political instability (Bassett and Turner 2007; Turner 2004). The pastoralists’ choice of destination can be shaped by social networks, pastoralist labour requirements, potential for pasture access, conflicts and hostile relations (Bukari et al. 2020).

Recent studies on the FHCs using the ES theory extend beyond the correlation between environmental and climate-change-related conflicts, to account for political, social and economic elements. Issifu, Darko and Paalo (2022) argue that other issues, such as national boundaries and regulation modifications, interact with different ES factors, such as ecological conditions, population growth and climate change, complicating the conflicts in Agogo, Ghana. Olumba (2024) explains that the shifts ‘in the political opportunity structure’ that gave the Fulani herders an advantage, which they then used to seek retribution from the Tiv farming communities, complicates the eco-violence in the Middle Belt of Nigeria. Lenshie et al. (2020) combined the eco-violence theory and the ungoverned spaces thesis and suggested that desertification-caused migration and a lack of security governance from the state exacerbated the herder–farmer conflicts in Nigeria.

Some studies explained that the migration of pastoralists to southern areas, because of climate change-induced desertification, led to resource depletion in northern Ghana and Nigeria, which in turn, fuelled the FHCs because of the politicization of the cultural and religious differences between the farmers and herders (Adibe 2020; Bello and Kazibwe 2022; Otu and Impraim 2021). Madu and Nwankwo (2021) demonstrate that the role of climate change-induced migration in the FHCs must be comprehended with an understanding of the social-identity distinctions between the herding groups and other populations (Nwankwo 2024a). Olumba et al. (2022) proposed that the social inequality, environmental injustice and political incompetence related to these disputes must be considered in the eco-violence theory.

Overall, the essence of the ES perspective on the FHCs in Africa can be outlined as follows: climate change creates unforeseen ecological alterations that interact with the changes in the human and livestock populations, resulting in insufficient resources and struggle for survival, leading to violent conflicts. This approach encompasses three main components: assessing the impact of physical environment on possible FHCs within and across countries, recognizing the effects of unequal access to resources and marginalization on regional tensions and noting that population expansion and resource scarcity are significant contributors to these issues. In essence, fast population growth, declining renewable resources, uneven distribution of resources and political unrest are all substantial sources of violence. The inability of the affected region to tackle such problems is generally viewed as a need for government action and intervention.

III. Political ecology perspective on the FHCs in Africa

Political ecology is an interdisciplinary field that was introduced in the 1980s. It pertains to how power structures affect the relationship between people and nature. In the early stages, Marxian PE formed the majority of theoretical frameworks in the field. Post-structural social theory and non-equilibrium ecology, post-structuralism and peasant studies were later adopted in the field (Robbins 2004). The central premise of PE is that the political and economic systems associated with ecological change impact people disproportionately. Thus, it comprehends politics as the practices and processes through which power is exercised and bargained, highlighting the fact that our environment is significantly affected by power dynamics (Paulson, Gezon and Watts 2003, 209), because the benefits and challenges of environmental changes vary significantly across regions (Bailey and Bryant 1997). The existing disparities in social and economic conditions have a political effect, shifting the power between people.

Notably, PE encompasses various topics, perspectives and approaches and remains a central study area for analyzing resource disputes across genders, ethnicities, religions and social divisions (Turner 2004). Political ecologists use public conflicts to uncover hidden power systems and true intentions (Blaikie and Brookfield 1987; Escobar 1999; Peet and Watts 1996). As conflicts can expose the interests, abilities and vulnerabilities of various social groups, analyzing resource conflicts is the primary analytical and methodological goal of PE. The scholars that support the ES perspective of the conflicts face intense criticism from those that support the PE perspective. Political ecologists reject the idea that environmental scarcity may be the cause of the conflicts in developing countries post the Cold War. For example, Bukari, Sow and Scheffran (2019) investigated how climate/environmental change triggered the FHCs in Agogo (southern) and Gushiegu (northern) districts of Ghana, indicating that the abundance of resources (and not their scarcity) and increase in land values were the most important drivers of the FHCs.

Multi-level, historical, materialist, political-economic and actor-orientated approaches have been adopted by PE of the African FHCs. Bassett (1988) offered the first PE study of the FHCs in Africa through a case study on Ivory Coast; the scholar studied the aftermath of the Sahelian drought that occurred in the 1970s that led to a large influx of Fulani pastoralists and their cattle into the region, causing tensions with the Senufo peasants (due to induced crop damage and no compensation). Bassett (1988) argued that resource transfer from the Senufo households is essential in understanding this PE issue, indicating the relation of local resource use to larger political economy structures. Turner (2004) delved into the moral facets of FHCs in the Sahel Belt, explaining that moral transgressions worsen such disputes and their portrayal. Turner (2004) argued that the ‘scarcity’ narrative perpetuates neoliberal efforts to bring peace to volatile areas by privatizing natural resources, thus, furthering the conflict. The issue of moral transgression has been re-echoed in recent studies on Nigeria, highlighting the fact that moral wrongs interact with issues of identity and belonging (Nwankwo and Okafor 2021, 2022) and that the changes in the moral economy shape the practice of the exclusion of pastoralists (Nwankwo 2023).

Following the works of Bassett (1988) and Turner (2004), the critique of the ES thesis regarding resource scarcity has been an important focus of the PE studies of the FHCs in Africa. Some scholars have criticized the ES-related explanations of the conflicts as theoretically and empirically problematic. Verhoeven (2011) criticized the perspectives of climate change, population growth and resource scarcity of the ES viewpoint as important explanations for the conflicts in Sudan, suggesting that they do not consider the power dynamics between the global and local forces. Verhoeven (2011) further argues that violence is not necessarily a result of an environmental shock and may be related to the strategies of elites to gain and contest wealth (Verhoeven 2011, 2014). Notably, the PE studies for analyzing the FHCs in Africa commonly concentrate on how the state policies play an important part in escalating conflict and power inequalities that characterize the access to and exclusion from natural resources. The studies based on the ES perspective pay less attention to the state's policies being an important driving factor.

Government and development policy discourses frame pastoralism as unproductive and ecologically damaging; considering it as the source of land-use disputes motivates the state's regulation of pastures and pastoralists through measurable indicators (frequently supported by the ecological succession theory) (Thébaud and Batterbury 2001). Political ecologists who studied African FHCs consistently challenge this theory. Tor Benjaminsen, Mathew D. Turner and Steven Tonah are some of the leading political ecologists of FHCs. Benjaminsen has been far more critical of state policies support marginalizing pastoralists and rent-seeking by elites and political leaders. Benjaminsen and Svarstad (2021) argue that this negative discourse about pastoralists underpins the marginalization of pastoralists through flawed state governance initiatives that modernize their activities through sedentarization and agricultural industrialization. Gonin and Gautier (2015) indicate sedentary pastoralism in sub-Saharan Africa has territorial repercussions for animal husbandry, resulting in disconnect between the resources that are essential for pastoralists. Benjaminsen, Maganga and Abdallah (2009) revealed that, in Mali and Tanzania, national laws prioritize agricultural growth and environmental conservation over pastoralism, and this marginalization has led to FHCs, with the pastoralists bribing officials to navigate around the problem (Benjaminsen, Maganga and Abdallah 2009; Benjaminsen and Ba 2009; Bergius et al. 2020).

The PE studies on the FHCs in African also focus on how access to and exclusion from resources defined by power imbalance can create tensions between farmers and herders. Turner et al. (2011) employed a PE framework of resource access to investigate how differences in the livelihood strategies of the herding and farming communities contribute to the changing dynamics of the FHC in Niger. Snorek, Moser and Renaud (2017) explored how the past experiences of pastoral and agro-pastoral users with land use and tenure impacted their views on the disputes regarding access to shared resources, especially concerning the enclosure of temporary and permanent bodies of water in Niger's pastoral zone. Walwa (2020) studied the resource accessibility in Tanzania's Rufiji and Kisarawe districts; the study proposed that the disputes in these regions should be interpreted based on the power dynamics used to bargain for resource access. For pastoralists who relocated to other regions, the access to continual water sources (required for sustaining livestock rearing throughout the year) was limited. Rejecting the notions of resource scarcity, climate change and ethnicity, Benjaminsen and Ba (2021) argue that the FHC in central Mali can be explained as a PE issue that is rooted in the historical management of the access to resources and control over land, suggesting that the conflicts had roots in guerrilla warfare and counterinsurgency.

The PE approach often incorporates political economy, as seen in the analyses of FHCs (e.g., Bassett 1988; Benjaminsen and Ba 2021; Mbih 2020; Nwankwo 2023). The political economy approach to determine the cause of the conflicts related to resources can be linked to the ‘greed’ hypothesis, wherein actors instigate, partake in or contribute to continuing a conflict because of economic interests (Hoeffler 2011; Issifu, Darko and Paalo 2022; Wennmann 2019). This situation weakens political institutions, producing criminal networks and conduits across scales through which natural resources are looted and sold across local and international markets (Issifu, Darko and Paalo 2022). The study by Bassett (1988) is an example of the political economy approach. Benjaminsen and co-authors emphasize the economic interest of elites, who constantly seek rent from the parties involved in FHCs (Benjaminsen, Maganga and Abdallah 2009; Benjaminsen and Ba 2009, 2021). Bassett (1988) also explains the economic interest of the Ivorian government in contributing to the conflicts between the Fulani herders and Senufo peasants. With respect to Northwest Cameroon, Mbih (2020) indicates that the economic interests of the colonial and postcolonial authorities, for example, revenue generation via taxation, contributes to the emergence and continuance of FHCs. Nwankwo (2023) presents that the profit-seeking tendencies of farmers and herders are linked to the changes in the political economy structure of Nigeria, which has shifted towards the neoliberal order through the introduction of structural adjustment programs.

Overall, the PE studies on the FHCs tend to reject the narratives of resource scarcity, population growth, environmental degradation and climate change, arguing that these factors are secondary. The PE perspective presents the idea that state, national and local policies favour crop farming, conservation and agricultural modernization without accounting for the prerogative of the pastoralist, creating conflicts between farmers and herders through policies that marginalize pastoralists. Thus, both ES and PE account for nature's role (as ecology or the environment) in such conflicts. Notably, the PE studies on FHCs view environmental change, population dynamics and cultural drivers as secondary factors. In the PE aspect of the FHC scholarship, the primary drivers of conflicts are considered to be the historical legacies shaping the region and the actors’ motivations for marginalizing vulnerable groups. These studies argue that the marginalization of herders, with respect to the access to and control over resources, drives the FHCs. Therefore, the majority of studies that analyze the FHCs using the PE approach do not consider the aspect of agricultural ecology; this is a critical foundation of PE, which can be traced back to the early work of Bassett (1988).

IV. Approach towards post-human FHCs

The PE-based studies that exploring FHCs do not consider ecology as a central issue. They read the role of nature (ecology or environment) contextually and generally consider it as a secondary driver. While the analysis of the FHCs in Africa from the PE perspective touches on the role of non-human drivers, the results of the analyses emphasize that the conflict results principally from state policies that marginalize pastoralists and support the rent-seeking behaviour of political elites (Benjaminsen, Maganga and Abdallah 2009; Benjaminsen and Ba 2009, 2019, 2021; Bergius et al. 2020; Walwa 2020). Although PE explicitly focuses on ecology, the results can be misleading or applied inappropriately to the literature on the FHCs. The contributions of mountains, rainfall, rivers, valleys and plains noted by Mbih et al. (2018) towards the transformation of pastoralism in the Western Cameroon Highlands are critical for understanding the dynamics of the FHCs.

The analyses of the FHCs in Africa from a PE perspective need to incorporate the ‘more-than-human’ aspect. This critique is in line with the well-rehearsed debate regarding the extent to which PE considers ecological concerns, as articulated by Walker (2005). Indeed, there is controversy about whether the field has become ‘politics without ecology’ (Bassett and Zimmerer 2004, 103). A few scholars revisited this debate (Turner 2016) and explored its human-centred variants (Menon and Karthik 2017; Srinivasan and Kasturirangan 2016). The conclusion is that the studies related to PE that incorporate ecological engagement are still alive in environmental politics and the economic effects of environmental changes (Turner 2016). Also, it appears that PE often exhibits the same human-centredness and exploitative practices as ‘developmentality’ (Srinivasan and Kasturirangan 2016, p. 125). However, there are studies within PE that consider the role of both human and non-human elements, and their interactions rather than focused on just one or the other (Menon and Karthik 2017).

A critical issue that the PE studies of FHCs need to pay more attention to is the role of animals (e.g., cattle) and plants; this approach can extend the literature on FHCs and post-human thinking. From the materialist viewpoint, the PE approach has emerged as a ‘challenge to a sovereign human subject or the abstract figure of the Anthropocene’ (Loftus 2019, p. 985), and some political ecologists, such as Bennett (2010), placed subjectivity as part of a more expansive assemblage of human and non-human elements. The ‘more-than-human’ approach in PE has blossomed over recent years, drawing inspiration from AST, ANT, Darwinian cultural biology or natural history. Louis Althusser's concept of interpellation, wherein the author explains how material elements and ideologies hail their subjects, has been used by Robbins (2007) to analyze how material elements (grasses, land and water) make people who they are. For example, in the context of FHCs, grasses, plants, water and cows shape the identity of herders.

With respect to wider political geography and PE, it is argued that animals are among the various networks that pertain to political life and co-produce ‘histories and geopolitical subjectivities’ (Hobson 2007, 263; Johnson 2015). Animals are a vital element of human social and political systems (Barua 2014, 2016; Srinivasan 2016), and various interspecies relationships shape the biopolitics of a region (Lorimer, Hodgetts and Barua 2019). According to Brown, Flemsæter and Rønningen (2019), reindeer herds are known to channel their movement across the outfields in a way that ensures their safety, for example, by avoiding roads, recreational places, dams, vehicles and fencing, especially in vulnerable situations, for example, during calving and when their young ones have not matured enough to navigate the terrain. Such examples highlight the importance of exploring the agencies of cattle and other non-human elements that shape farmer–herder relations. Thus, studying social and political life through the interactions among humans, animals and materials enables the politics environment to be attentive of collective entities (Brown, Flemsæter and Rønningen 2019).

Several studies considered the relations between humans and plants and, plants’ agencies in political practices. Jakobsen and Westengen (2022) explored James Scott's ‘grain hypothesis’ to portray intricate linkages between cereals (e.g., maize) and state formation in India and Malawi, highlighting the fact that this approach made them premier political crop producers. Cereal grains that are related to state formation improve the visibility, quantifiability, divisibility and assemblage of the crops, permitting their use for taxation and hence, contributing to modern capitalism via war, colonialism and violent appropriation. The findings of Jakobsen and Westengen (2022) and Brown, Flemsæter and Rønningen (2019) imply that plants and animals are vital elements that may contribute to FHCs, thus, reflecting the phenomena of ‘multi-species agency’ (Gesing 2021; Haraway 2008; Locke 2013; Moore 2015) or ‘multi-species assemblage’ (Scott 2017). This multi-species perspective is crucial for exploring the relationalities of animals, plants and humans, and other material elements in the FHC assemblage, wherein ‘people are not only situated but also found in ecological networks’ (Jakobsen and Westengen 2022, 3). Thus, giving more attention to the multi-species agency can help the literature on FHCs to contribute to post-human development in human and environmental geographies. Focusing on grains and related political-economic crops can also return the agricultural ecology element to the FHC analysis based on the PE approach. This perspective can build on Scott's (2017) idea of ‘political crops’ (e.g., Fischer, Jakobsen and Westengen 2022; Fischer 2022; Sinha 2022) by highlighting the fact that the production and reproduction of specific crops can be impacted by cattle (e.g., crop damage).

From this perspective, how animals and plants contribute to politics that shape the FHCs can traced. The role of politics in FHCs can be traced to the behaviour of politicians and elites. In a study on Ghana, Paalo (2020) indicated that the residents of Agogo, particularly farmers, had a very low tolerance for Fulani pastoralists and were willing to vote against any political party that supported their presence. This situation caused political maneuvering, with political parties promising to either remove or ensure the stay of the pastoralists, creating a dilemma among stakeholders (Paalo 2020). McCrone (2023) discusses how political elites instigate armed pastoralists and livestock movements into the areas that are typically used for grazing, settling or farming by other groups, leading to widespread armed conflicts, killings, sexual violence and the displacement of tens of thousands of people. In this condition of tense conflicts, politicians who assist livestock-keeping communities in locating grazing land in drought-prone regions gain immense popularity. Notably, the perception that a politician has facilitated access to grazing land is influential in garnering favour for upcoming elections. Hence, grass, or the pledge to provide it, becomes a precious patronage resource for political elites. In this context, animals and grass get involved in the political process, contributing to the politics regarding access to land and elections (e.g., Boone 2009; Boone and Kriger 2010; Boone and Nyeme 2015).

V. Potential for a relational approach to study the FHCs in Africa

Political ecology has established its presence as an important approach for analyzing the FHCs in Africa. However, there is a potential for a relational approach for analyzing the FHCs through the perspectives of PE and ES. Previous analyses of the FHC that combine the PE and ES perspectives are limited. Those that have been done have been primarily based on structural explanations (Dimelu, Salifu and Igbokwe 2016; Moritz 2006, 2010). Moritz (2010) argued that while structural approaches, such as those of PE and ES for analyzing FHCs (and not PE and ES as specific fields), could explain the conflicts between herders and farmers; a processual approach could help explain why certain conflicts escalate into violence and others do not. Hence, Raleigh (2010) indicates that a significant issue when studying FHCs from the perspective of PE is that such disputes are typically viewed as a consequence of micro- and macro-economic dynamics and distribution policies, with the potential for violent or ‘structural’ outcomes. However, this critique only stands from the perspective of the FHCs because, within the broader PE literature, the issues of ‘structure’ and ‘agency’ have been addressed, especially from the feminist PE point of view.

In the broad field of PE, most theories offer various blends of actors and structural standpoints, wherein the agencies are shaped, restricted and enabled by structures (Svarstad, Benjaminsen and Overå 2018, 354). Nevertheless, PE has also adopted actor-oriented (Robbins 2004; Svarstad, Benjaminsen and Overå 2018) and actor–network approaches. The network approach, which adopts the web-of-relations theory and ANT in PE, which are relational approaches, addresses Moritz's (2010) concern for processualism. Thus, the problem is not in PE's approach, rather the inappropriate application of PE for the study of the FHCs in Africa. Using relational approaches in PE can correct these issues in the FHC literature. Notably, PE approaches, such as the web-of-relations approach and ANT can address limitations posed by most current research of FHCs from a PE. Moritz's (2010) processual analysis assumes that the herder–farmer relationships are latent tensions, because both parties believe that their objectives are not mutually compatible. Thus, it is assumed that the herders and farmers know that they have to compete for natural resources. There is no apparent conflict as long as neither party takes action to cause harm nor distress to the other. Thus, the processual approach focuses on understanding the manifestation of latent conflicts.

The processual approach, however, has some limitations such as that it separates local from global scales and considers conflicts as developing from latent to manifest stages on a local scale. The approach ignores the fact that FHCs can be shaped by regional and even global issues. Notably, the processual approach must clarify the relationships between the sociocultural, political, historical, ecological, demographic, economic and institutional elements. It also offers little conceptual detail of their linkages to themselves and the conflicts. In this article, I focused on resolving the tension between the ES and PE perspectives for analyzing FHCs (not PE as a field) in a single framework that embraces the core values of both the perspectives, capturing the multi-dimensionality of the conflicts and the issues of processes, networks and temporality in analyzing the FHCs. The application of relational approaches, such as the web of relations, AST and ANT, can help address these issues.

The ‘web of relations’ approach is a way to analyze how all the components in a network are connected and how changes in one part will affect other parts (Rai et al. 2019). It includes events, actors and regulations that affect different areas. This concept can help scholars comprehend the connections between all the elements that processual analysis considers as influential contexts for the FHCs (Mariki, Svarstad and Benjaminsen 2015). Robbins (2004) suggests viewing power relations as ‘networks’, rather than rigid hierarchies, and Rocheleau (2008, 724) suggests that these connections should be seen as ‘webs of relation’, with hierarchies embedded within the horizontal and vertical linkages. Political ecologists have drawn insights from ANT and AST, emphasizing how technology, materiality and ‘beyond-human’ elements shape environmental phenomena and governance (e.g., Bennett 2010; Holifield 2009; Rose and Wilson 2019; Watts and Scales 2015). These new epistemological tools can enable the field of PE to analyze power and explore how power operates through socio-political realms and non-human factors. Rocheleau and Roth (2007) propose developing models of rooted networks infused with power and linked to territories. They suggest theorizing mobility and connectivity in horizontal and vertical dimensions, merging ecological paradigms with hybrid geographies and ANT.

These relational frameworks in PE have been scarcely applied to the FHCs, despite their great capacities to attend to the complexity and dynamics of the conflicts. Nonetheless, the fusion of AST and ANT can best capture these aspects. Notably, the web of relations approach is similar to ANT and AST, because it concerns the relationship between entities and networks. However, the web of relations theory may not capture the same dynamic interaction and agency level and the emergent and evolving complexity of FHCs as AST and ANT. Notably, the web of relations can depict relationships but may not show how the relationships influence and transform the actors and elements involved. Also, it is viewed more as a conceptual framework to identify links and processes, rather than being considered as a detailed methodological approach (Rai et al. 2019, 128).

Note that AST and ANT can contain a web of relation(s), that is, a series of connections between the elements of an assemblage and the network they produce. Therefore, AST and ANT are powerful theories that can consider the dynamics and complex nature of the FHCs. Incorporating AST and ANT is even more potent because it permits a holistic analysis of the complexity of the FHCs, by focusing on the dynamic interactions between the human and non-human elements, agencies and emergent properties that may not be fully accounted for by the individual theories. However, there is no absence of multi-scalar thinking in FHC scholarship. The ES and PE perspectives use multi-scalar thinking in the analysis of FHCs. Notably, AST and ANT are multi-scalar approaches and dissolve the ontological distinction between scales (Müller 2015; Müller and Schurr 2016). Thus, they can incorporate multi-scalar thinking in geography and PE. Furthermore, incorporating AST and ANT enables exploring how several actors, elements and relationships (web of relations) come together, adapt and evolve within a networked context and across scales. Integrating these two theories can help us address the tensions between the PE and ES theories of the FHCs. This is a possible theoretical approach because incorporating AST and ANT is common practice in the literature on socio-ecological dynamics. I draw on such studies to develop a robust analytical framework. Finally, incorporating AST and ANT in a single framework is a sophisticated theoretical approach, because they can account for multiple factors and networks, while considering the processes that produce the conflicts, escalating and deescalating the issues as well as understanding how they can re-enact and re-escalate.

VI. Reconceptualization of FHCs in Africa based on AST and ANT

Assemblage thinking is a theoretical approach that originates from a study conducted by Deleuze and Guattari (1976, 1987). It pertains to how socio-material processes are produced via relationships between sites, instead of being configured through the internal relations in the sites. Note that AST is a post-human theory that dissolves the non-human-human dichotomies by recognizing the agencies of non-human elements and using ‘affects’ to analyze and intervene in the emergent agencies of their human/non-human constellations (Dittmer 2014). DeLanda (2006, 8) states that assemblages comprise of parts that maintain the properties from their interactions, making each assemblage unique to its historical and geographical context. DeLanda (2006) further explains that assemblages are characterized by the combined features of their parts and their capacities for interacting with other assemblages in complex ways; these capacities enable unpredictable connections between the components within and outside an assemblage.

In this sense, AST can help us theorize how the ES assemblage of the FHCs interacts with the PE assemblage of the FHCs in specific cases. The goal of the analysis would be to determine the ES and PE elements that are part of the assemblage and analyze the changes in the assemblage with shifting farmer–herder relations and socio-political conditions. DeLanda (2006, 14) claims that the elements of assemblages are defined by ‘relations of exteriority’ that are ‘conditionally necessary’; they can be removed from one configuration and placed into another having varied sets of interactions, while remaining reasonably independent. As a result, the characteristics of the whole (the assemblage) cannot be understood by simply combining the attributes of its components; the attributes of these pieces determine how the assemblage evolves (Nwankwo 2024b). Thus, attention must be paid to the shifting configuration of the FHC assemblage.

Furthermore, ANT decentres the social construction and topographical conception of space, to form a ‘more-than-human’ ontology, while prioritizing radical contingencies of relations and emergence (Ablo 2019; Anderson and McFarlane 2011; Müller 2015; Müller and Schurr 2016). Latour (2005) explains that when exploring the results, ANT considers the networks, associations and assemblages of the human and non-human elements across space and time. It is essential to consider the constantly changing links, relationships and configurations that can correlate the occurrences in different places and periods (Callon 1999; Law 1999; Law and Mol 2001). Note that when examining the FHC through network geographies, ANT can suggest that a complex process is at play. This process is determined by a changing combination of actors and structures (Simandan 2010, 2011). The networks in ANT refer to the relationships between diverse actors (Murdoch 1998; Siakwah 2018), which are stable and robust (Law 1999; Latour 1999). The networks describe the structures in which people and institutions interact.

ANT goes beyond binary notions, such as ‘global-local’, ‘structure-agency’, ‘materiality-sociality’ and ‘knowledge-power’, which are often used to try to make sense of events related to violent disputes or environmental issues. Note that fixed and established ideas obstruct our capacity to recognize the intricate details that form these occurrences. Thus, an effective ANT approach for understanding FHCs pertains to seeing beyond dualities and recognizing how these conflicts can be shaped by the interactions between different elements, discourse and actors within and outside the state. Currently, there is no study that explored the FHCs in Africa using the AST and ANT approach, even though ANT has been a valuable method for analyzing ‘more-than-human’ PE for nearly two decades (Gareau 2005). The application of ANT to analyze the resource-related conflicts in Africa is based on understanding the oil-related conflicts that arise from the interactions among the trans-national, national and local actors (e.g., Ablo 2019; Obi and Rustad 2011; Siakwah 2018; Watts 2013).

The analysis of FHCs can benefit from its theoretical explanation of complex phenomena shaped by diverse actors. French (2019) used a political-ecological network approach to explore how nature (earthquakes and the geophysical features of Lake Parón in Peru) and human actors together co-produced the use of the lake as a reservoir for power projects and the subsequent conflict arising from the neoliberal subsumption of the lake. This is in line with Hart (2013, 313), who argues that ‘social relations’ concerning nature are constituted through political action. French (2019) demonstrates how natural forces are integral and active actors in co-producing resource-related conflicts. On the one hand, nature inspires and enables human action; on the other hand, it inhibits human motivation and vigour. Thus, a political-ecological network approach for the FHCs may be well-suited to respond to the emerging post-human orientation of political geography.

Note that ANT is more suited to the PE theory of FHCs, because of their conceptual closeness, especially with respect to their focus on actors. Napogbong, Ahmed and Derbile (2020) deployed the action theory of adaptation derived from an actor-oriented PE perspective, which conceptualizes the pastoralists’ adaptation to climate change as ‘actions’ and ‘agency’ (purposeful activities). In this sense, the adaptation will be limited to human actors (pastoralists). Bukari (2023) promotes using an actor–network-oriented PE approach for considering the multifaceted nature of FHCs in Ghana and examines the various actors and processes that can lead to their escalation. This approach emphasizes the interests, traits and activities of multiple actors involved in social, economic, political and ecological matters, their interconnections, and the fluctuating results from their interactions that shape the FHCs. Bukari's (2023) study in Ghana is an upgrade to the earlier actor-oriented PE approach that ignored the network. The works of Napogbong, Ahmed and Derbile (2020) and Bukari (2023) signal that a relational approach to FHCs that incorporate PE and ANT would address the issues raised by Moritz (Dimelu, Salifu and Igbokwe 2016; Moritz 2006, 2010) regarding how PE is applied to FHCs.

Assemblage theory is more suited to the ES theory of FHCs. Although the connection between the AST and ES perspectives has been scarcely evidenced in the literature, the analysis of climate terrorism by Telford (2020) offers valuable insights. Telford (2020) draws on DeLanda's (2006) reinterpretation of assemblage theory applied in critical geopolitics (Dittmer 2014) and ES theory (Homer-Dixon 1999), to explore climate terrorism assemblage. Telford (2020) builds on the ES-based argument that there are links between environmental change (particularly climate change) and the neo-Malthusian argument of resource scarcity and conflicts (Fjelde and von Uexkull 2012; Homer-Dixon 1999). Thus, eco-violence, which is derived from these circumstances, can be regarded as an assemblage containing the elements of environmental/climate change, pastoralist migration that stems from this change, population pressure, identity differences that influence the uneven distribution of natural resources and the human actors involved in the assemblage (e.g., pastoralists, farmers and the government).

However, there is still a need to address the theoretical disagreement between the PE and ES perspective for analyzing the FHCs, to account for the various factors that shape the FHCs. Incorporating AST and ANT can help achieve this goal. Assemblages can be used to comprehend how FHCs are impacted by their components and the outside forces. Note that ANT can be employed to analyze the multi-level and complex nature of the actors involved in the FHCs and identify all the external factors that contribute to their resolution or continuance. An integrated framework that incorporated the AST and ANT can bring issues that are emphasized by ES and PE perspectives for analyzing FHCs together as a networked assemblage. Müller and Schurr (2016) demonstrated the conceptual closeness of AST and ANT that permits their systematic combination. Some studies also incorporated AST and ANT to analyze socio-ecological issues, such as energy poverty (Harrison and Popke 2011) and oil-related conflict (Siakwah 2018). Harrison and Popke (2011, 949) analyzed the nature of energy poverty in rural North Carolina by incorporating AST, ANT and PE. They refer to ‘energy poverty’ as a particular kind of techno-social assemblage, made up of an array of networked actors and materialities, stating that the networked nature of energy poverty highlights its historical foundations and multi-dimensional character. Incorporating ANT and AST, Siakwah (2018, 68) argues that the effects of oil exploitation on the environment and the conflict in the western region of Ghana are influenced and produced by a ‘globalized assemblage’ involving the exchanges between and among the state, national, local and trans-local actors.

Both studies offer insights into how FHCs can be analyzed as a ‘globalized’ and ‘networked’ assemblage, for understanding the historical foundations and multi-dimensional character of the conflicts and analyzing the relationship between different actors (across scales) that shape the conflict. Schilling, Saulich and Engwicht (2018) argue that while the interconnections between the local and national dynamics of natural resource governance and conflict can be recognized, the material interactions between the actors of resource governance and the FHCs across these scales remain under-explored. According to Müller and Schurr (2016, 220–222), there are three areas of synergy between AST and ANT. Simandan (2018) summarizes these as first, ‘a spatial, ANT-inspired account of how assemblages can be stabilized’ (Simandan 2018, 655) and second, that there is apparent alertness that ANT ‘is better suited for describing the fluid, incremental change, whereas AST works best for describing abrupt changes’ (Simandan 2018, 656). Third, the study suggests that the transfer and sharing of the idea from AST into ANT may be productive for socio-material relations (Simandan 2018, 656). The third point of cross-fertilization, ‘a transfer and sharing of the idea’, reduces the disagreement between the PE and ES perspectives. The ANT's concept of translation is instrumental in this respect. The critiques of ANT-inspired PE perspective argue that ANT's claim to the symmetrical political agency between non-humans and humans ignores the structural imbalances that affect political ecologies, while framing actants as situated subjects (Lave 2015; Malm 2018). Loftus (2019) argues that this criticism blurs the attention political ecologists pay to situated ecological practices. Regardless of the critique, using ANT to analyze FHCs would help incorporate environmental change, population growth and the associated resource scarcity into a single theoretical framework that also accounts for PE-related issues. Notably, neo-Malthusian and resource scarcity are often rejected as factors leading to conflict by the PE's approach to analyzing FHCs. Combining ANT and AST can help incorporate the environmental and ecological factors in a manner that is not deterministic. By adopting the proposed approach, we no longer interpret that the FHCs are caused by only ES issues and view the assemblage as a combination of the ES and PE perspectives. This approach can reduce, if not dissolve, the disagreement between the PE and ES perspectives.

The idea at the heart of an ANT-based analysis is that phenomena must be interpreted, shown and questioned after purification and translation processes (Latour 1987, 1993). Purification divides information into distinct ontological territories (Eden, Tunstall and Tapsell 2000), such as ‘nature’ or ‘culture’. However, purification should not be restricted to this example of dualism. With respect to the discourse on FHC, purification refers to the difference between the ES and PE discourses of the conflict.

Translation is essential for reconciling the dispute between the ES and PE conceptions. In ANT, translation refers to how ideas and matter from different fields interact through discursive, technical, scientific and political procedures (Caprotti et al. 2020). The hybrid results created by this process can unite explanations, interests, goals and analytical strategies that were formerly distinct (Callon 1986). Callon (1980) introduced the concept of ‘translation’, which involves enrolling diverse actants into an actor network and aligning their interests to create convergences and homologies. This process unfolds in four phases (Bussular, Burtet and Antonello 2019):

Problematization: Defines the issue and relevant actants

Interessement: Recruits actants into the network and defines their roles

Enrolment: Aligns the interests of the recruited actants successfully

Mobilization: Empowers the primary actant to represent others (towards a shared goal)

Thus, as noted by Chen and Wu (2021), translation is vital for establishing collective connections by attracting heterogeneous actors and convincing them to share common interests. Caprotti et al. (2020) used a multi-scalar approach to bridge ANT and socio-technical transitions, to analyze how discourses and practices are translated across scales and impact the energy transition processes in South Africa's energy landscape. They highlight the importance of understanding energy policy articulation across the global, national, municipal, community and household scales, considering the interactions between various actor networks and how translation shapes policy implementation and framing. According to Woods (1998) and Lockie (2004), Callon's (1980) concept of translation provides striking intuitions for studying local environmental conflicts, of which the FHC is an example. Magnani's (2012) case study in northern Italy regarding a conflict over a large-scale municipal waste-to-energy incinerator project demonstrates how the result of the conflict, viz., the failure of the project (aside from a coalescing of powerful interests) can only be explained by a relational (human-non-human) agency, thus, nullifying the purification between humans and non-humans.

Müller (2014) explains how conventions and knowledge circulate through translation processes, stabilizing claims and aligning different elements. Knowledge can be rigid or flexible depending on the degree of actant alignment (Callon 1991). Across these views, translation facilitates the alignment required for achieving convergence and the formulation of valid knowledge claims that are open to interpretation and negotiation, thus, enabling actions (Müller 2014). Resolving or reducing the differences between the ES and PE perspectives will thus entail some knowledge translation. Hence, when the FHC is examined in terms of how it would be better interpreted and communicated, rather than being limited to the ES or PE perspective, we were able to understand the various factors that contributed to the conflicts (societal, technical, environmental, cultural, political and economic). Translation processes help turn these ideas into concepts that can be widely understood and accepted (Jupe and Funnell 2015). Translation also involves establishing power dynamics within a system, for example, designating the individuals permitted to address specific matters and those not given a voice in the network (Gendron and Baker 2005). This implies which actors and elements play specific roles in the FHC assemblage.

Translation has a vital role in how FHCs are analyzed and understood. It enables us to consider numerous elements within and beyond the boundaries of PE or ES on different levels. Additionally, as noted by Monstadt and Schramm (2017), translation is a process of editing that allows two ends to come together and develop a version of certain ideals or models. Thus, resolving the tension between the PE and ES perspectives of the FHCs will involve reworking the two models using AST and ANT. It would have been plausible to use ANT alone, but as Woods (1998) argued, there could be challenges in applying ANT to rural environmental conflicts (resulting in the issue of reductionism). While ANT's network metaphor and inclusion of non-human entities provide a participant perspective, it oversimplifies the actors’ identities and interests. Furthermore, although ANT can describe the network of individuals, institutions, communities and non-human actors that shape the conflict, it can fail to fully account for the complex social and political contexts in which these networks emerge.

Thus, an explanation must be sought beyond the network approach. Consequently, incorporating AST can help attend to external issues, because it incorporates the concept of ‘relations of exteriority’, which enables the elements of an assemblage to seek connections outside the assemblage (DeLanda 2006). Hence, regarding FHCs, we propose using AST to incorporate issues jettisoned by the PE perspective (especially ‘resource scarcity’ and ‘population growth’) into the FHC assemblage and using ANT's translation to incorporate them together with the issues highlighted by the PE perspective. The fusion can produce a better analysis that does not unjustly disarticulate the vital information of such devastating conflicts, while providing a comprehensive analysis of such conflicts.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Editage (

) for English language editing.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,authorship,and/ or publication of this article: This review is part of the study funded by the Commonwealth Scholarship Commission in the UK. Commonwealth Scholarship Commission,(grant number NGCA-2020-76).

ORCID iD

Cletus Famous Nwankwo

References

Ablo

Austin Dziwornu

. 2019. “Actors, networks and assemblages: Local content, corruption and the politics of SME's participation in Ghana's oil and gas industry.” International Development Planning Review 41 (2): 214–22. https://doi.org/10.3828/idpr.2018.33

Adano

Witsenburg

(2008) Pastoral Sedentarisation, Natural Resource Management, and Livelihood Diversification in Marsabit District, Northern Kenya. New York: Edwin Mellen Press.

Adibe

Jideofor.

2020. “Farmers’ and herders’ violent conflicts and the politicization of transhumant pastoralism in Nigeria.” African Renaissance 17 (1): 1744–2532. https://doi.org/10.31920/2516-5305/2020/17n1a6

Amnesty International Nigeria. 2018. Nigeria: The Harvest of Death – Three Years of Bloody Clashes Between Farmers and Herders in Nigeria. December 17, 2018. Index Number: AFR 44/9503/2018. Accessed 11 June 2019. https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/afr44/9503/2018/en/.

Anderson

McFarlane

. 2011. “Assemblage and geography.” Area 43 (2): 124–7.

Ani

Kelechi Johnmary

Uwizeyimana

Dominique Emmanuel

. 2022. “Climate change and environmental conflicts in Nigeria: Focus on farmer-herder crisis in Ebonyi State.” African Journal of Peace and Conflict Studies 11 (1): 7.

Ayana

Essayas K.

Ceccato

Pietro

Fisher

Jonathan R. B.

DeFries

Ruth

. 2016. “Examining the relationship between environmental factors and conflict in pastoralist areas of East Africa.” Science of the Total Environment 557: 601–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.03.102

Bächler

1999. “Environmental degradation in the south as a cause of armed conflict.” In Environmental Change and Security: A European Perspective, 107–29. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Bailey

Sinead

Bryant

Raymond

. 1997. Third World Political Ecology: An Introduction. New York: Routledge.

10.

Barnett

Jon.

2000. “Destabilising the environment – conflict thesis.” Review of International Studies 26 (2): 271–88.

11.

Barua

Maan.

2014. “Volatile ecologies: Towards a material politics of human–animal relations.” Environment and Planning A 46 (6): 1462–78.

12.

Barua

Maan.

2016. “Lively commodities and encounter value.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 34 (4): 725–44.

13.

Bassett

Thomas J.

1988. “The political ecology of peasant-herder conflicts in the northern Ivory Coast.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 78 (3): 453–72.

14.

Bassett

Thomas J.

Turner

Matthew D.

. 2007. “Sudden shift or migratory drift? Fulbe herd movements to the Sudano-Guinean region of West Africa.” Human Ecology 35 (1): 33–49.

15.

Bassett

Thomas J.

Zimmerer

K. S.

. 2004. “Cultural ecology.” In Geography in America at the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century, edited by Gaile

Willmott

. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

16.

Bello

Ismail

Kazibwe

Sophia

. 2023. “Pastoralist, farmers and desertification induced conflict in North Central and Southern Nigeria.” Small Wars & Insurgencies 34(8): 1486–1500.

17.

Benjaminsen

Tor A.

Boubacar

. 2009. “Farmer–herder conflicts, pastoral marginalisation and corruption: A case study from the inland Niger delta of Mali.” Geographical Journal 175 (1): 71–81.

18.

Benjaminsen

Tor A.

Boubacar

. 2019. “Why do pastoralists in Mali join jihadist groups? A political ecological explanation.” The Journal of Peasant Studies 46 (1): 1–20.

19.

Benjaminsen

Tor A.

Boubacar

. 2021. “Fulani-Dogon killings in Mali: Farmer-herder conflicts as insurgency and counterinsurgency.” African Security 14 (1): 4–26.

20.

Benjaminsen

Tor A.

Maganga

Fuatin P.

Abdallah

Jumanne Moshi

. 2009. “The Kilosa killings: Political ecology of a farmer–herder conflict in Tanzania.” Development and Change 40 (3): 423–45.

21.

Benjaminsen

Tor A.

Svarstad

Hanne

. 2021. “Pastoralists and the state.” In Political Ecology: A Critical Engagement with Global Environmental Issues. Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan Cham, 155–82.

22.

Bennett

2010. Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things. Durham: Duke University Press.

23.

Bergius

Mikael

Benjaminsen

Tor A.

Maganga

Faustin

Buhaug

Halvard

. 2020. “Green economy, degradation narratives, and land-use conflicts in Tanzania.” World Development 129: 104850.

24.

Blaikie

Piers

Brookfield

Harold

1987. Land Degradation and Society. London and New York: Methuen.

25.

Boone

Catherine.

2009. “Electoral populism where property rights are weak: Land politics in contemporary sub-Saharan Africa.” Comparative Politics 41 (2): 183–201.

26.

Boone

Catherine

Kriger

Norma

. 2010. “Multiparty elections and land patronage: Zimbabwe and Côte d'Ivoire.” Commonwealth & Comparative Politics 48 (2): 173–202.

27.

Boone

Catherine

Nyeme

Lydia

. 2015. “Land institutions and political ethnicity in Africa: Evidence from Tanzania.” Comparative Politics 48 (1): 67–86.

28.

Brown

Katrina M.

Flemsæter

Frode

Rønningen

Katrina

. 2019. “More-than-human geographies of property: Moving towards spatial justice with response-ability.” Geoforum; Journal of Physical, Human, and Regional Geosciences 99: 54–62.

29.

Bukari

Kaderi Noagah

. 2023. “Violent farmer–herder conflicts in Ghana: Constellation of actors, citizenship contestations, land access and politics.” Canadian Journal of African Studies/Revue Canadienne des études Africaines 57 (1): 115–37.

30.

Bukari

Kaderi Noagah

Bukari

Shaibu

Sow

Papa

Scheffran

Jürgen

. 2020. “Diversity and multiple drivers of pastoral Fulani migration to Ghana.” Nomadic Peoples 24 (1): 4–31.

31.

Bukari

Kaderi Noagah

Sow

Papa

Scheffran

Jürgen

. 2019. “Real or Hyped? Linkages between environmental/climate change and conflicts–the case of farmers and Fulani Pastoralists in Ghana.” In Human and Environmental Security in the Era of Global Risks, edited by Benassi

Mohamed

Gupta

Himangana

Pollmann

Olaf

, 161–85. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

32.

Bussular

Camilla Zanon

Burtet

Cecília

Antonello

Claudia

. 2019. “The actor-network theory as a method in the analysis of the samarco disaster in Brazil.” Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal 15 (2): 176–91.

33.

Cabot

Charlene.

2017. “Climate change and farmer–herder conflicts in West Africa.” In Climate Change, Security Risks and Conflict Reduction in Africa. Hexagon Series on Human and Environmental Security and Peace, 11–44. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

34.

Callon

Michel.

1980. “Struggles and negotiations to define what is problematic and what is not: The socio-logic of translation.” In The Social Process of Scientific Investigation: Sociology of the Sciences, edited by Knorr

K. D.

Krohn

Whitley

Reidel

, 197–219. Dordrecht.

35.

Callon

Michel.

1986. “Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay.” The Sociological Review 32 (1): 196–233.

36.

Callon

Michel.

1991. “Techno-economic networks and irreversibility.” In A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination, edited by John

Law

, 132–65. London: Routledge.

37.

Callon

Michel.

1999. “Actor-network theory: The market test.” The Sociological Review 47: 181–95.

38.

Caprotti

Federico

Essex

Stephen

Phillips

Jon

de Groot

Jiska

Baker

Lucy

. 2020. “Scales of governance: Translating multi-scalar transitional pathways in South Africa's energy landscape.” Energy Research & Social Science 70: 101700.

39.

Chen

Yeong-Shyang

Shou-Tsung

. 2021. “An exploration of actor-network theory and social affordance for the development of a tourist attraction: A case study of a Jimmy-related theme park, Taiwan.” Tourism Management 82: 104206.

40.

Chukwuma

Kodili Henry

. 2020. “Constructing the herder-farmer conflict as (in) security in Nigeria.” African Security 13 (1): 54–76.

41.

DeLanda

Manuel.

2006. A New Philosophy of Society: Assemblage Theory and Social Complexity. New York: Continuum.

42.

Deleuze

Gilles

Guattari

Félix

. 1976. Rhizôme, Introduction. Paris: Editions de Minuit.

43.

Deleuze

Gilles

Guattari

Félix

. 1987. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

44.

Dimelu

Mabel Ukamaka

Salifu

Edward Danjuma

Igbokwe

Edwin 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: 147–54.

45.

Dittmer

Jason.

2014. “Geopolitical assemblages and complexity.” Progress in Human Geography 38 (3): 385–401.

46.

Eden

Sally

Tunstall

Sylvia M.

Tapsell

Susan M.

. 2000. “Translating nature: River restoration as nature-culture.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 18 (2): 258–73.

47.

Eke

Surulola.

2020. “Nomad savage’ and herder-farmer conflicts in Nigeria: The (un) making of an ancient myth.” Third World Quarterly 41 (5): 745–63.

48.

Escobar

Arturo.

1999. “After nature: Steps to an antiessentialist political ecology.” Current Anthropology 40 (1): 1–30.

49.

Fischer

Klara.

2022. “Why Africa’s new green revolution is failing–maize as a commodity and anti-commodity in South Africa.” Geoforum; Journal of Physical, Human, and Regional Geosciences 130: 96–104.

50.

Fischer

Klara

Jakobsen

Jostein

Westengen

Ola T.

. 2022. “The political ecology of crops: From seed to state and capital.” Geoforum; Journal of Physical, Human, and Regional Geosciences 130: 92–5.

51.

Fjelde

Hanne

von Uexkull

Nina

. 2012. “Climate triggers: Rainfall anomalies, vulnerability and communal conflict in sub-Saharan Africa.” Political Geography 31 (7): 444–53.

52.

French

Adam.

2019. “Webs and flows: Socionatural networks and the matter of nature at Peru’s Lake Parón.” Annals of the American Association of Geographers 109 (1): 142–60.

53.

Gareau

Brian.

2005. “We have never been human: Agential nature, ANT, and Marxist political ecology.” Capitalism Nature Socialism 16 (4): 127–40.

54.

Gendron

Yves

Baker

Charles Richard

. 2005. “On interdisciplinary movements: The development of a network of support around foucaultian perspectives in accounting research.” European Accounting Review 14 (3): 525–69.

55.

Gesing

Friederike.

2021. “Towards a more-than-human political ecology of coastal protection: Coast care practices in Aotearoa New Zealand.” Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space 4 (2): 208–29.

56.

Gonin

Alexis

Gautier

Denis

. 2015. “Shift in herders’ territorialities from regional to local scale: The political ecology of pastoral herding in western Burkina Faso.” Pastoralism 5: 1–12.

57.

Haraway

Donna J

. 2008. When Species Meet. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

58.

Harrison

Conor

Popke

Jeff

. 2011. ““Because you got to have heat”: The networked assemblage of energy poverty in eastern North Carolina.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 101 (4): 949–61.

59.

Hart

Gillian.

2013. “Gramsci, geography, and the languages of populism.” In Gramsci: Space, Nature, Politics, edited by Michel

Ekers

Hart

Gillian

Kipfer

Stefan

Loftus

Alex

, 301–20. Oxford: Blackwell.

60.

Hartmann

Betsy.

2014. “Converging on disaster: Climate security and the Malthusian anticipatory regime for Africa.” Geopolitics 19 (4): 757–83.

61.

Higazi

Adam.

2016. “Farmer-pastoralist conflicts on the Jos Plateau, central Nigeria: Security responses of local vigilantes and the Nigerian state.” Conflict, Security & Development 16 (4): 365–85.

62.

Hobson

Kersty.

2007. “Political animals? On animals as subjects in an enlarged political geography.” Political Geography 26 (3): 250–67.

63.

Hoeffler

Anke.

2011. ““Greed” versus “grievance”: A useful conceptual distinction in the study of civil war?” Studies in Ethnicity and Nationalism 11 (2): 274–84.

64.

Holifield

Ryan.

2009. “Actor-network theory as a critical approach to environmental justice: A case against synthesis with urban political ecology.” Antipode 41 (4): 637–58.

65.

Homer-Dixon

T. F.

2010. Environment, Scarcity, and Violence. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

66.

Homer-Dixon

Thomas F.

1994. “Environmental scarcities and violent conflict: Evidence from cases.” In International Security, 5–40. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

67.

Homer-Dixon

Thomas F.

1999. Environment, Scarcity, and Violence. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

68.

Hsiang

S. M.

Burke

Miguel

. 2013. “Quantifying the influence of climate on human conflict.” Science 341 (6151): 1235367.

69.

Igwebuike

Ebuka.

2021. “Metaphorical constructions of herding in news reports on Fulani Herdsmen.” Continuum 35 (1): 85–98.

70.

Institute for Economics and Peace, IEP. 2016. Global Terrorism Index. Sydney. [online]. Accessed February 9, 2018. http://economicsandpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Global-TerrorismIndex-2016.2.pdf.

71.

Issifu

Abdul Karim

Darko

Francis Diawuo

Paalo

Sebastian Angzoorokuu

. 2022. “Climate change, migration, and farmer–herder conflict in Ghana.” Conflict Resolution Quarterly 39 (4): 421–39.

72.

Jakobsen

Jostein

Westengen

Ola T.

. 2022. “The imperial maise assemblage: Maise dialectics in Malawi and India.” The Journal of Peasant Studies 49 (3): 536–60.

73.

Johnson

Elizabeth R.

2015. “Of lobsters, laboratories, and war: Animal studies and the temporality of more-than-human encounters.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 33 (2): 296–313.

74.

Jupe

Robert

Funnell

Warwick

. 2015. “Neoliberalism, consultants and the privatisation of public policy formulation: The case of Britain's rail industry.” Critical Perspectives on Accounting 29 (2015): 65–85.

75.

Kevane

Gray

. 2008. “Darfur: Rainfall and conflict.” Environmental Research Letters 3 (3): 034006.

76.

Latour

Bruno.

1987. Science in Action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

77.

Latour

Bruno.

1993. We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge: Harvard University Press Cambridge.

78.

Latour

Bruno.

1999. “On recalling ANT.” The Sociological Review 47 (S1): 15–25.

79.

Latour

Bruno.

2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

80.

Lave

Rebecca.

2015. “Reassembling the structural: Political ecology and actor-network theory.” In Routledge Handbook of Political Ecology, edited by Perreault

Tom

Bridge

Gavin

McCarthy

James

, 213–23. New York: Routledge.

81.

Law

John.

1999. “After ant: Complexity, naming and topology.” The Sociological Review 47 (1): 1–14.

82.

Law

John

Mol

Annemarie

. 2001. “Situating technoscience: An inquiry into spatialities.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 19 (5): 609–21.

83.

Lenshie

Nsemba Edward

Okengwu

Kelechi

Nwachinemere

Ogbonna Confidence

Ezeibe

Christian

. 2020. “Desertification, migration, and herder-farmer conflicts in Nigeria: Rethinking the ungoverned spaces thesis.” Small Wars and Insurgencies 32 (8): 1221–51.

84.

Lind

Jeremy.

2003. “Adaptation, conflict and cooperation in pastoralist East Africa: A case study from South Turkana, Kenya.” Conflict, Security and Development 3 (3): 315–34.

85.

Locke

Piers.

2013. “Explorations in ethnoelephantology: Social, historical, and ecological intersections between Asian elephants and humans.” Environment and Society 4 (1): 79–97.

86.

Lockie

Stewart.

2004. “Collective agency, non-human causality and environmental social movements. A case study of the Australian landcare movement.” Journal of Sociology 40 (1): 41–57.

87.

Loftus

Alex.

2019. “Political ecology III: Who are “the people”?” Progress in Human Geography 44 (5): 981–90.

88.

Lorimer

Jamie

Hodgetts

Timothy

Barua

Maan

. 2019. “Animals’ atmospheres.” Progress in Human Geography 43 (1): 26–45.

89.

Madu

Ignatius Ani

Nwankwo

Cletus Famous

. 2021. “Spatial pattern of climate change and farmer-herder conflict vulnerabilities in Nigeria.” GeoJournal 86 (6): 2691–707.

90.

Magnani

Natalia.

2012. “Nonhuman actors, hybrid networks, and conflicts over municipal waste incinerators.” Organization & Environment 25 (2): 131–45.

91.

Malm

Andreas.

2018. The Progress of this Storm: Nature and Society in a Warming World. London: Verso.

92.

Mariki

Sayuni B.

Svarstad

Hanne

Benjaminsen

Tor A.

. 2015. “Elephants over the cliff: Explaining wildlife killings in Tanzania.” Land Use Policy 44: 19–30.

93.

Markakis

John.

1997. Resource Conflict in the Horn of Africa. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

94.

Mbih

Richard Achia

. 2020. “The politics of farmer–herder conflicts and alternative conflict management in northwest Cameroon.” African Geographical Review 39 (4): 324–44.

95.

Mbih

Richard Achia

Driever

Steven L.

Ndzeidze

Stephen K.

Mbuh

Mbongowo J.

Bongadzem

Carine S.

Wirngo

Harry M.

. 2018. “Fulani pastoralists’ transformation process: A sustainable development approach in the Western Highlands of Cameroon.” Environment, Development and Sustainability 20 (2): 789–807.

96.

McCrone

Flora.

2023. ““I have opened the land for you:” Pastoralist politics and election-related violence in Kenya’s arid north.” Journal of Eastern African Studies 17 (1-2): 1–20.

97.

Meier

Patrick

Bond

Doug

Bond

Joe

. 2007. “Environmental influences on pastoral conflict in the Horn of Africa.” Political Geography 26 (6): 716–35.

98.

Menon

Ajit

Karthik

Manasi

. 2017. “Beyond human exceptionalism: Political ecology and the non-human world.” Geoforum; Journal of Physical, Human, and Regional Geosciences 79: 90–2.

99.

Mkutu

Kennedy.

2001. “Pastoralism and conflict in the horn of Africa.” In Africa Peace Forum/Saferworld/University of Bradford. Bradford: University of Bradford.

100.

Monstadt

Jochen

Schramm

Sophie

. 2017. “Toward the networked city? Translating technological ideals and planning models in water and sanitation systems in Dar es Salaam.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 41 (1): 104–25.

101.

Moore

Jason W.

2015. Capitalism in the Web of Life: Ecology and the Accumulation of Capital. London: Verso.

102.

Moritz

Mark.

2006. “The politics of permanent conflict: Farmer-herder conflicts in Northern Cameroon.” Canadian Journal of African Studies 40 (1): 101–26.

103.

Moritz

Mark.

2010. “Understanding herder-farmer conflicts in West Africa: Outline of a processual approach.” Human Organization 69 (2): 138–48.

104.

Müller

Martin.

2014. “A half-hearted romance? A diagnosis and agenda for the relationship between economic geography and actor-network theory (ANT).” Progress in Human Geography 39 (1): 65–86.

105.

Müller

Martin.

2015. “Assemblages and actor-networks: Rethinking socio-material power, politics and space.” Geography Compass 9 (1): 27–41.

106.

Müller

Martin

Schurr

Carolin

. 2016. “Assemblage thinking and actor-network theory: Conjunctions, disjunctions, cross-fertilisations.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 41 (3): 217–29.

107.

Murdoch

Jonathan.

1998. “The spaces of actor-network theory.” Geoforum; Journal of Physical, Human, and Regional Geosciences 29 (4): 357–74.

108.

Napogbong

Lambert Abatanie

Ahmed

Abubakari

Derbile

Emmanuel Kanchebe

. 2020. “Fulani herders and indigenous strategies of climate change adaptation in Kpongu community, North-Western Ghana: Implications for adaptation planning.” Climate and Development 13 (3): 201–14.

109.

Nwankwo

Cletus Famous

. 2020. “Essentialising critical geopolitics of the farmers–pastoralists conflicts in West Africa.” GeoJournal 85 (5): 1291–308.

110.

Nwankwo

Cletus Famous

. 2021. “Discursive construction of the farmer-pastoralist conflict in Nigeria.” Open Political Science 4 (1): 136–46.

111.

Nwankwo

Cletus Famous

. 2022. “Grammar of geopolitics: Geopolitical imaginations of farmer-herder conflicts in Nigeria.” Coğrafya Dergisi 44: 1–18.

112.

Nwankwo

Cletus Famous

. 2023. “The moral economy of the agatu “massacre”: Reterritorializing farmer-herder relations.” Society 60 (2): 359–71.

113.

Nwankwo

Cletus Famous

(2024a) Environmental change and identity questions in farmer and herder’s eco-violence narratives in the Nigerian Benue Valley. SN Social Sciences 4(2): 50.

114.

Nwankwo

Cletus

(2024b) Constructing farmer-pastoralist conflict as Islamization: Transformation and adaptation of resource competition discourse in the Nigerian Benue Valley. Geoforum 148: 103937.

115.

Nwankwo

Cletus Famous

Okafor

Uchenna Paulinus

. 2021. “Moral wrongs, indigeneity and the enactment of farmer-herder conflicts violence in south-eastern Nigeria.” GeoScape 15 (2): 20–133.

116.

Nwankwo

Cletus Famous

Okafor

Uchenna Paulinus

. 2022. “Ethnic faultline in the farmer–pastoralist conflict (FPC)–when does ethnicity matter to the FPCs? A case study of Adani-Nimbo area in South-Eastern Nigeria.” Journal of Global Faultlines 9 (1): 44–56.

117.

Nwozor

Agaptus

Shola

John

Oshewolo

Segun

Oladoyin

Anthony Mayowa

Adedire

Solomon A.

Okidu

Onjefu

. 2021. “Herder-farmer conflicts: The politicization of violence and evolving security measures in Nigeria.” African Security 14 (1): 55–79.

118.

Obi

Cyril

Rustad

Siri Aas

. 2011. “Introduction: Petro-violence in the Niger Delta–the complex politics of an insurgency.” In Oil and Insurgency in the Niger Delta: Managing the Complex Politics of Petro-Violence1, edited by Obi

Cyril

Rustad

Siri Aas

(eds). London: Zed Books, 1–14.

119.

Okoli

Al Chukwuma

Ogayi

Cornelius O.

. 2018. “Herdsmen militancy and humanitarian crisis in Nigeria: A theoretical briefing.” African Security Review 27 (2): 129–43.

120.

O’Loughlin

John

Witmer

Frank D. W.

Linke

Andrew M.

Laing

Arlene

Gettelman

Andrew

Dudhia

Jimy

. 2012. “Climate variability and conflict risk in east Africa, 1990–2009.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109 (45): 18344–9.

121.

Olumba

Ezenwa E.

2024. “The politics of eco-violence: Why is conflict escalating in Nigeria’s middle belt?” Terrorism and Political Violence 36(2): 180–197.

122.

Olumba

Ezenwa E.

Nwosu

Ben

Okpaleke

Francis

Okoli

Chukwuma Rowland

. 2022. “Conceptualising eco-violence: Moving beyond the multiple labelling of water and agricultural resource conflicts in the Sahel.” Third World Quarterly 43 (9): 2075–90.

123.

Onyema

Eze Marcel

Amujiri

B. A.

. 2021. “Local migrants, insurgency and farmer’s conflict in Benue State, Nigeria, 2015-2017.” African Journal of Terrorism and Insurgency Research 2 (3): 31.

124.

Otu

Bernard

Impraim

Kojo

Twumhene

Peter

. 2020. “New dimensions of farmer–herder conflict in the Afram Plains of Ghana: Implications for human security.” Journal of Applied Security Research 15 (4): 484–97.

125.

Otu

Bernard Okoampah

Impraim

Kojo

. 2021. “Aberration of farmer–pastoralist conflicts in Ghana.” Peace Review 33 (3): 412–9.

126.

Paalo

Sebastian.

2020. “The politics of addressing farmer-herder conflicts in Ghana.” Peacebuilding 9 (1): 79–99.

127.

Paulson

Sydney

Gezon

Lisa L.

Watts

Michael

. 2003. “Locating the political in political ecology: An introduction.” Human Organisation 62 (3): 205–17.

128.

Peet

Richard

Watts

Michael

1996. Liberation Ecologies: Environment, Development and Social Movements. New York: Routledge.

129.

Penu

Dennis

Paalo

Sebastian Angzoorokuu

. 2021. “Institutions and pastoralist conflicts in Africa: A conceptual framework.” Journal of Peacebuilding & Development 16 (2): 224–41.

130.

Rai

Nitin D.

Benjaminsen

Tor A.

Krishnan

Siddhartha

Madegowda

Chikkananjegowda

. 2019. “Political ecology of tiger conservation in India: Adverse effects of banning customary practices in a protected area.” Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 40 (1): 124–39.

131.

Raleigh

Jordan

Salehyan

. 2008, March. Assessing the impact of climate change on migration and conflict. In paper commissioned by the World Bank Group for the Social Dimensions of Climate Change workshop, Washington, DC (pp. 5-6).

132.

Raleigh

Clionadh.

2010. “Political marginalisation, climate change, and conflict in African Sahel states.” International Studies Review 12 (1): 69–86.

133.

Raleigh

Clionadh

Kniveton

Dominic

. 2012. “Come rain or shine: An analysis of conflict and climate variability in East Africa.” Journal of Peace Research 49 (1): 51–64.

134.

Robbins

Paul.

2004. Political Ecology: A Critical Introduction. New York: Wiley Blackwell.

135.

Robbins

Paul.

2007. Lawn People: How Grasses, Weeds, and Chemicals Make us Who We Are. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

136.

Rocheleau

Dianne

Roth

Robin

. 2007. “Rooted networks, relational webs and powers of connection: Rethinking human and political ecologies.” Geoforum; Journal of Physical, Human, and Regional Geosciences 38 (3): 433–7.

137.

Rocheleau

Dianne E.

2008. “Political ecology in the key of policy: From chains of explanation to webs of relation.” Geoforum; Journal of Physical, Human, and Regional Geosciences 39 (2): 716–27.

138.

Rose

Jeff

Wilson

Jackson

. 2019. “Assembling homelessness: A posthumanist political ecology approach to urban nature, wildlife, and actor-networks.” Leisure Sciences 41 (5): 402–22.

139.

Schilling

Saulich

Engwicht

. 2018. “A local to global perspective on resource governance and conflict.” Conflict, Security & Development 18 (6): 433–61.

140.

Schwartz

Daniel M.

Deligiannis

Tom

Homer-Dixon

Thomas

. 2001. “The environment and violent conflict.” In The Environmental Conflict, edited by Paul

Dieh

, 273–94. London: Routledge.

141.

Scott

James C.

2017. Against the Grain: A Deep History of the Earliest States. New Haven: Yale University Press.

142.

Siakwah

Pius.

2018. “Actors, networks, and globalised assemblages: Rethinking oil, the environment and conflict in Ghana.” Energy Research & Social Science 38: 68–76.

143.

Simandan

2018. “Competition, contingency, and destabilization in urban assemblages and actor-networks.” Urban Geography 39 (5): 655–66.

144.

Simandan

Dragos.

2010. “Beware of contingency.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 28 (3): 388–96.

145.

Simandan

Dragos.

2011. “Options for moving beyond the canonical model of regional path dependence.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 36 (1): 172–8.

146.

Sinha

Shreya.

2022. “From cotton to paddy: Political crops in the Indian Punjab.” Geoforum; Journal of Physical, Human, and Regional Geosciences 130: 146–54.

147.

Srinivasan

Krithika.

2016. “Towards a political animal geography?” Political Geography 50: 76–8.

148.

Srinivasan

Krithika

Kasturirangan

Rajesh

. 2016. “Political ecology, development, and human exceptionalism.” Geoforum; Journal of Physical, Human, and Regional Geosciences 75: 125–8.

149.

Svarstad

Hanne

Benjaminsen

Tor A.

Overå

Ragnhild

. 2018. “Power theories in political ecology.” Journal of Political Ecology 25 (1): 350–63.

150.

Tade

Oludayo

Yikwabs

Yikwab P.

. 2020. “Conflict triggers between farming and pastoral communities in Nasarawa State, Nigeria.” Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research 12 (3): 101–14.

151.

Telford

Andrew.

2020. “A climate terrorism assemblage? Exploring the politics of climate change-terrorism-radicalisation relations.” Political Geography 79: 102150.

152.

Thébaud

Brigitte

Batterbury

Simon

. 2001. “Sahel pastoralists: Opportunism, struggle, conflict and negotiation. A case study from eastern Niger.” Global Environmental Change 11 (1): 69–78.

153.

Turner

Matthew D.

2004. “Political ecology and the moral dimensions of “resource conflicts”: The case of farmer–herder conflicts in the Sahel.” Political Geography 23 (7): 863–89.

154.

Turner

Matthew D.

2016. “Political ecology II: Engagements with ecology.” Progress in Human Geography 40 (3): 413–21.

155.

Turner

Matthew D

Ayantunde

Augustine A.

Patterson

Kristen P.

Daniel Patterson

III . 2011. “Livelihood transitions and the changing nature of farmer–herder conflict in Sahelian West Africa.” The Journal of Development Studies 47 (2): 183–206.

156.

Vanger

E. T.

Nwosu

B. U.

. 2020. “Institutional parameters that condition farmer–herder conflicts in Tivland of Benue state, Nigeria.” African Security Review 29 (1): 20–40.

157.

Verhoeven

Harry.

2011. “Climate change, conflict and development in Sudan: Global neo-Malthusian narratives and local power struggles.” Development and Change 42 (3): 679–707.

158.

Verhoeven

Harry.

2014. “Gardens of Eden or hearts of darkness? The genealogy of discourses on environmental insecurity and climate wars in Africa.” Geopolitics 19 (4): 784–805.

159.

Walker

Peter A.

2005. “Political ecology: Where is the ecology?” Progress in Human Geography 29 (1): 73–82.

160.

Walwa

William John

. 2017. “Land use plans in Tanzania: Repertoires of domination or solutions to rising farmer–herder conflicts?” Journal of Eastern African Studies 11 (3): 408–24.

161.

Walwa

William John

. 2020. “Growing farmer-herder conflicts in Tanzania: The licenced exclusions of pastoral communities interests over access to resources.” The Journal of Peasant Studies 47 (2): 366–82.

162.

Watts

Michael.

2013. “Oil talk.” Development and Change 44 (4): 1013–26.

163.

Watts

Natasha

Scales

Ivan R.

. 2015. “Seeds, agricultural systems and socio-natures: Towards an actor–network theory informed political ecology of agriculture.” Geography Compass 9 (5): 225–36.

164.

Wennmann

Achim.

2019. “The political economy of violent conflict within states.” In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies. London: Routledge, 13–14.

165.

Woods

Michael.

1998. “Researching rural conflicts: Hunting, local politics and actor-networks.” Journal of Rural Studies 14 (3): 321–40.