European Peace Facility and Pastoral Conflicts in the Horn of Africa

27/11/2025

European Peace Facility and Pastoral Conflicts in the Horn of Africa

Context

Pastoral and agro-pastoral areas in the Horn of Africa (Southern Ethiopia, Northern Kenya, Somalia, Sudan) have long been marked by endemic conflicts. These disputes often occur between ethnic pastoral groups or within them, primarily over scarce resources such as grazing land, water, and livestock. Because many ethnic groups straddle national borders, local disputes frequently spill into neighboring states, creating cross-border instability.

Structural Challenges

  • Chronic neglect: Most pastoral conflicts go unnoticed unless they escalate into large-scale violence requiring military intervention.
  • Poor understanding: Literature and policy debates have focused more on secessionist or interstate conflicts, leaving pastoral disputes under-researched.
  • Lack of mechanisms: With no robust conflict resolution frameworks tailored to pastoral realities, disputes persist and intensify.

EPF's Role and Limitations

The European Peace Facility (EPF) sought to provide substantial military and financial support to stabilize fragile contexts. In the Horn of Africa, however, its interventions faced several obstacles:

  1. State-centric approach: EPF funding often reinforced central governments and militaries, while pastoral conflicts were community-driven and resource-based, requiring local mediation rather than military solutions.
  2. Cross-border complexity: Because pastoral groups live across Ethiopia, Kenya, and Somalia, conflicts could not be contained within national boundaries. EPF's design was ill-suited for transboundary disputes.
  3. Weak legitimacy: Communities perceived EPF-backed interventions as external impositions, disconnected from their lived realities of resource scarcity and traditional dispute resolution systems.
  4. Spillover risks: Supplying arms or military support risked worsening tensions, as pastoral conflicts were already linked to the proliferation of small arms and light weapons (SALW).

Policy Implications

  • Human security focus: Peacebuilding must prioritize community needs—access to water, grazing land, and livestock markets—rather than only strengthening state militaries.
  • Cross-border frameworks: Regional mechanisms under the AU and IGAD should be empowered to address disputes that transcend national boundaries.
  • Conflict-sensitive investment: Infrastructure and trade initiatives (e.g., livestock markets) must integrate conflict mitigation strategies to avoid fueling competition.
  • Knowledge gaps: More research is needed on pastoral conflicts to design tailored interventions, rather than applying generic military solutions.

Conclusion

The Horn of Africa case demonstrates why the EPF failed: military-heavy, state-centric interventions could not resolve resource-based, community-level disputes. Sustainable peace requires localized conflict resolution mechanisms, regional cooperation, and investment in resilience. Without these, external funding risks reinforcing instability rather than mitigating it.

Images add a perfect touch to your blog posts and attract readers to open them. The first image from your content will be automatically used as a blog post thumbnail, so the right opening image can increase the attractiveness of your article.

Share