Woman milks a cow in northern Mongolia. Credit by Katiekk, Shutterstock

By Solange Bandiaky-Badji
WASHINGTON DC, Aug 6 2026 (IPS)

This is supposed to be the year the world finally sees and recognizes pastoralists. The United Nations has designated 2026 as the International Year of Rangelands and Pastoralists, bringing long-overdue attention to communities who have sustained some of the world’s most fragile and important landscapes for generations.

Yet right now, the world is on fire… quite literally. All eyes are on the wildfires in France, Spain, and Canada. California is coming up on wildfire season. And scientists are predicting the strongest El Niño in history.

As climate-fueled disasters become more frequent and severe, now is an important moment to learn from pastoralists, whose traditional knowledge, adaptive land management practices, and deep understanding of living with climate variability have helped sustain people and landscapes through centuries of environmental change.

In August, governments will gather in Mongolia for COP17 of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD COP17), where rangelands, land degradation and climate resilience will be central to the global agenda.

This will be the first UNCCD COP since the e.stablishment of the Caucus of Indigenous Peoples and the Caucus of Local Communities—hard-won victories at COP16—with “Land and People Day and tenure rights included formally on the COP17 agenda.

Dr. Solange Bandiaky-Badji is Coordinator and President of the Rights and Resources Initiative (RRI)

Yet the scale of what is at stake is enormous. Rangelands cover more of the Earth’s surface than any other land use type, and up to 500 million people directly rely on pastoralism for their livelihoods. These lands are central to food security, biodiversity, climate resilience, and the survival of communities across Africa, Asia, Latin America and beyond. Yet pastoralists remain among the least protected and understood land stewards in the world.

This year of recognition must become more than a symbolic milestone. Unless governments and institutions use this moment to move from visibility to rights, pastoralists will continue to be praised in speeches while being pushed further to the margins in law, policy and investment.

Resilience Is Not Invulnerability

Pastoralists are incredibly resilient. Across drylands, savannahs, mountains and rangelands, they have adapted to shifting seasons, scarce water, and fragile ecosystems through sophisticated systems of mobility, customary governance, and ecological knowledge. Their way of life is one of the world’s most climate-adapted livelihood systems. But resilience should not be confused with invulnerability.

At a New York Climate Week event last year focused on Indigenous pastoralist knowledge and nature-based solutions, pastoralist leaders described the reality their communities face every day. One speaker from the Sahel spoke of droughts, severe flooding and wildfires that continue to destroy livelihoods and cost lives. She recalled stories from her grandmother about struggling to find even a grain to eat in order to survive and warned that extreme weather is threatening their lives.

While Climate change is intensifying the pressures on lands and livelihoods that were already under strain, it is only part of the story. Pastoralists are also being squeezed by policies and development models that misunderstand and overlook how their systems work and focus on a narrative that pastoralists are a threat to ecosystems. Their livelihoods depend on mobility, but many legal frameworks are built around fixed land ownership and permanent settlement. Their governance systems are collective and customary, but many governments recognize only formal administrative structures. Their territories include grazing corridors, water points and seasonal routes, but these are rarely treated as essential infrastructure. Even where policies exist focusing on pastoralism, they often do so from restrictive approaches that only center pastoralists as part of a chain of production or tourism exploitation.

The Gap Between Recognition and Rights

A recent analysis by the Rights and Resources Initiative across Kenya, Niger, Tanzania, Mongolia, Nepal, Bolivia and Peru found a persistent gap between recognition on paper and protection in practice. While governments may acknowledge pastoralist land access in some form, mobility—the foundation of pastoralist livelihoods—is rarely protected in law. Among the countries studied, Niger stands out as the lone exception explicitly recognizing mobility as a fundamental right. The legal gap among the rest of the countries has real consequences.

Across regions, rangelands are being fragmented by agricultural expansion, infrastructure projects, extractive industries, conservation restrictions, carbon initiatives and green energy projects. These pressures are often presented as development or climate solutions. But when they are imposed without pastoralists’ full participation and consent, they deepen inequality, fuel conflict and weaken the very systems that have protected rangelands for generations.

Invisible in Data, Invisible in Policy

That exclusion is also statistical. Pastoralists are too often missing from the data systems that shape national priorities, development financing and climate policy. When governments do not accurately count pastoralist communities, map their mobility routes, measure their economic contributions, or document the pressures they face, their needs and contributions remain invisible. When communities are invisible in the data, they are often invisible in budgets, laws and global commitments.

This is especially alarming given the scale of pastoralists’ contributions. In Africa, pastoralists produce much of the continent’s milk and a significant share of its meat. They sustain local markets, support rural economies, manage vast rangelands and carry knowledge that is essential to climate resilience and biodiversity protection. Yet their contributions are rarely matched by legal protection, public investment or meaningful political representation.

Women face even greater barriers. Pastoralist women are central to livestock economies, food systems, households and community resilience. But they are often excluded from land ownership, mobility rights, leadership and formal decision-making. Any serious effort to strengthen pastoralist systems must address women’s rights directly, not as an afterthought.

Tenure Redefined

At COP17, land tenure returns to the agenda as a standing policy item, carried forward from previous sessions alongside rangelands and pastoralists. That is progress. But tenure conceived as titles, boundaries and fixed parcels cannot secure people whose security depends on movement. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants (UNDROP) already names transhumant, nomadic and semi-nomadic communities as rights holders and requires states to protect their land rights, an obligation that cannot be met by extending sedentary tenure models to mobile peoples. Pastoralist tenure must be redefined: adaptive, embedding mobility, recognizing shared use, seasonal occupation and overlapping claims and anchored in customary governance. For pastoralists, secure tenure is flexible tenure.

The Solutions Are Clear

The good news is that pastoralists are not waiting for the world to act on their behalf. They are organizing. There is a growing movement across Africa, Asia and Latin America. They may be communities separated by continents and colonial borders, but they are connected by shared histories, livelihoods and struggles.

First, governments must recognize pastoral mobility as a legal right. Movement is not a weakness of pastoralist systems; it is what allows communities to manage climate variability, protect ecosystems and sustain livestock in changing conditions.

Second, states must protect the physical infrastructure of pastoralism, including grazing corridors, water points, dry season reserves and seasonal migration routes. These are as essential to pastoral economies as roads and ports are to national economies.

Third, customary governance systems must be legally recognized and supported. Pastoralist communities have long managed land, water and conflict through local institutions that are adapted to their realities. Replacing these systems with rigid, top-down frameworks weaken both rights and resilience.

Fourth, pastoralist women must have equal rights to land, mobility, resources and leadership. Climate resilience cannot be built while half the community is excluded from decisions that affect them and shape our collective future.

Finally, climate finance, conservation funding and development investments must reach pastoralist communities directly and respect their rights. Projects that restrict access to land without consent or compensation undermine both livelihoods and global environmental goals.

COP17 in Mongolia is an opportunity to turn this year of recognition into a year of action. Governments should arrive prepared not only to discuss rangelands, but to listen to the people who know them best. Pastoralists must be at the table as rightsholders, experts and partners.

The world cannot meet its goals on climate resilience, food security, biodiversity or land restoration while ignoring the communities already holding these systems together.

This is the year of pastoralists. Now it must become the year the world finally recognizes their rights.

Dr. Solange Bandiaky-Badji, is President and Coordinator, Rights and Resources Initiative

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

What Africa needs is deep systematic changes in land governance. Communities need to control the disposition of their territories; peace will never happen if populations are stuck in economic instability. Credit: Tommy Trenchard/IPS

By Solange Bandiaky-Badji
WASHINGTON DC, Sep 25 2023 (IPS)

When the heads of state of all United Nations members spoke in front of the UN General Assembly last week, a number of African leaders were not able to attend, having been removed from office in military-led coups.

On the surface, these nations do not share many similarities outside of geography and colonial histories. Consider Gabon and Niger, the most recent countries to experience “regime change.” Gabon is a small, biodiverse nation; the president under house arrest and his father before him have been in power since 1967. Niger is a much larger, mostly desert country; the president under house arrest had been elected in 2021.

While France, the U.S., Russia, and China have condemned or worried about the wave of coups, they have mainly focused on the need to restore “constitutional order” and democracy. The root cause of the coups and conflicts in Africa is about resource extraction that drives poverty and human rights violations

This instability, taking place across West and Central Africa, has drawn plenty of attention, both regionally and internationally. But missing in the debates on which international power is behind each coup or whether they should be tolerated is the far more basic question on resources.

While France, the U.S., Russia, and China have condemned or worried about the wave of coups, they have mainly focused on the need to restore “constitutional order” and democracy. The root cause of the coups and conflicts in Africa is about resource extraction that drives poverty and human rights violations.

There are now seven African countries whose militaries have removed national governments, and all of their economies are largely dependent on resource extraction. Mali and Burkina Faso are among the world’s leading producers of gold. Chad and Sudan depend on oil extraction. Niger is the world’s fourth largest producer of uranium. Guinea holds between one quarter and half of the world’s bauxite reserves, the primary source of aluminum. Gabon is the second biggest producer of manganese in Africa and its economy also depends on oil and gas extraction, even as the government was exploring ways to tap emerging carbon credit markets for the tropical forests that cover almost 90% of its land.

The land needed for resource extraction, and the labor needed for the mines, drilling operations, or refineries—this economic activity comes at a cost. Families eking out a livelihood based on agriculture or forest products have little recourse when larger economic interests swoop in and take their land and resources.

In these countries, the rural communities have lived on and tended the land for generations—far longer than the governments have been in power. Land and property ownership is the basis of individual wealth in the Global North. But in the Global South, legal systems that disenfranchise rural communities are accepted because of the resources that their land contains.

The resource extraction sector does not provide a suitable replacement for the livelihoods that community members lose when their lands are taken. We have yet to see an example where miners, for example, are adequately compensated and protected from workplace hazards.

In the Sahel, Niger is often commended for its recognition of customary tenure rights. Niger has a progressive Rural Code adopted in 1993 that set innovative land governance systems, legislation and institutions.

A Rural Land Policy was adopted in 2021 with provisions to recognize rights and prevent land conflicts. Niger also has the most progressive pastoral law in the Sahel, adopted in 2010, that recognizes the rights of nomadic communities dependent on livestock. Burkina Faso and Mali also have strong protections for community rights, but enforcement was lacking in all three countries.

Foreign investors are always happy to exploit these countries’ resources; enforcing community rights is never their priority. Equitable sharing of the benefits from the extractive sector, to provide local youth with gainful employment or land ownership, and respecting rural land ownership arrangements, are rarely on the table.

I look at Senegal, where I was born and raised, and all the ingredients are there for the country to join this string of coups. Government revenues depend on resource extraction—phosphate mines drive most of the economy.

Natural gas and oil have been discovered off the coast and the government ambition is to make Senegal an oil, gas, and hydrocarbon giant. While Senegal has been the most stable country in the Sahel, we are seeing democratic rollback with arrests of opposition political leaders and citizens, which triggered massive street protests.

And, Senegal’s legal system does not protect the land rights of rural communities—leaving them without a basis for wealth. Senegal has struggled to come up with a new land policy and law to take into account the current political and economic context and give ownership rights to the communities. The land law in force is the “Loi du Domaine National,” adopted immediately after we gained independence from France in 1964.

Ultimately, it’s not about who is in power and is certainly not limited to former French colonies. This is all about how resource extraction is prioritized. What Africa needs is deep systematic changes in land governance. Communities need to control the disposition of their territories; peace will never happen if populations are stuck in economic instability.

“Africa is a beggar sitting on a gold mine,” said Birago Diop, the 20^th century Senegalese poet and storyteller. Despite their natural riches, four of these seven countries—Mali, Niger, Sudan and Chad—scored in the bottom 10th of the global “Prosperity Index;” the other three score in the bottom 40%.

The challenge before all of us—for Africa’s regional bodies like ECOWAS and the African Union, and for global institutions like the UN—is how we can leave these outdated economic models in the 20^th century. Two decades into this century, we still haven’t embraced the need for a more equitable approach to natural resources. Until we do so, no government is safe.

Dr. Solange Bandiaky-Badji, PhD is Coordinator of the Rights and Resources Initiative (RRI). She holds a PhD in Women’s and Gender Studies from Clark University, Massachusetts, and an MA in Environmental Sciences and in Philosophy from Cheikh Anta Diop University, Senegal.

While 2020 saw the highest deforestation rate in Brazil’s history, deforestation rates were up to three times lower in Indigenous territories. Credit: Mario Osava/IPS

By Solange Bandiaky-Badji and Torbjørn Gjefsen
WASHINGTON DC, Sep 27 2022 (IPS)

US $270 million may sound like a lot of money, especially for just one year. But it is only a small fraction—less than one percent—of all global funding for climate change adaptation and mitigation.  This small fraction, however, is the annual amount that was invested in the tenure and forest management of Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPs and LCs) over the past decade.

This month we learned that the actual amount of funding that reached IPs and LCs was a small fraction of the small fraction: only 17 percent went to activities that specifically named an indigenous organization.

This figure likely overestimates the actual share that reaches these communities as intermediary institutions also have project implementation costs that are part of this funding.  The discrepancy calls into question whether the $1.7 billion pledged at the UN climate change meetings to Indigenous Peoples and local communities for their land tenure and conservation initiatives will actually reach them.

Securing and protecting the tenure rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities is one of the most cost-effective, equitable, and efficient means of protecting, restoring, and sustainably using tropical forestlands and the ecosystems services they provide

The rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities are inextricably linked to the preservation of key ecosystems and the maintenance of carbon stored in tropical forests and peatlands. At least 36 percent of Key Biodiversity Areas globally are found on IP and LC lands, along with at least 25 percent of the above-ground carbon storage in tropical forests.

Efforts to reduce climate change and the loss of biodiversity depend on these landscapes remaining intact, and IP and LC forest management has proven more effective in this regard than any other. While 2020 saw the highest deforestation rate in Brazil’s history, for example, deforestation rates were up to three times lower in Indigenous territories.

The most recent United Nations climate report, embraced this point, stating: “Supporting Indigenous self-determination, recognizing Indigenous Peoples’ rights and supporting Indigenous knowledge-based adaptation are critical to reducing climate change risks and effective adaptation.”

In a report our organizations released in September, we found that between 2011 and 2020, donors disbursed approximately $2.7 billion (on average $270 million annually) for projects supporting IP and LC tenure and forest management in tropical countries. We compiled data on this funding stream and assessed the grants along different dimensions of “Fit for Purpose” criteria—meaning that funding is given in ways that are effective, relevant and appropriate for IP and LCs.

Applying the “Fit for Purpose” criteria for IP and LC funding over the past decade was educational. We found that:

• IP and LC-led: Only 17 percent of IP and LC tenure and forest management funding between 2011 and 2020 mentioned an indigenous organization, indicating that a low share of funding is under leadership of Indigenous and community organizations.
• Mutually Accountable: There is a lack of accountability and transparency from donors towards IPs and LCs, inhibiting IP and LC understanding and influence over donor priorities and decisions. Most private foundations, who represent the majority of the IPLC Forest Tenure Pledge donors, do not share data on their projects systematically.
• Flexible and Long-term: Donors have increasingly been providing funding through long-term funding agreements, which provides IP and LC organizations with much-needed predictability and security. Yet, a lack of flexibility to change or adapt priorities within projects restricts IP and LC organizations in addressing diverse community needs, imminent threats or seize on windows of opportunity.
• Gender Inclusive: Only 32 percent of IP and LC tenure and forest management funding included gender-related keywords, despite the essential role of women in IP and LC forest management and their notable exclusion from many governance structures and forest management decisions.
• Timely and Accessible: Due to strict eligibility and administrative requirements of bilateral and multilateral donors, IP and LC organizations must overcome considerable barriers to access funding. Funding for IP and LC tenure and forest management has therefore generally relied on traditional development aid funding structures, with national and international organizations acting as intermediaries.

Securing and protecting the tenure rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities is one of the most cost-effective, equitable, and efficient means of protecting, restoring, and sustainably using tropical forestlands and the ecosystems services they provide.

Many things get in the way of funding Indigenous Peoples and local communities, but in the end we will not solve the twin crises of climate change and biodiversity extinction unless we embrace the need for more equitable partnerships. We have already pledged the funding to support them, now we have to make sure they receive it.

Solange Bandiaky-Badji, PhD, is the Coordinator of the Rights and Resources Initiative
Torbjørn Gjefsen is Senior Policy Advisor, Climate, for Rainforest Foundation Norway.