Resource information
Despite the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement, which brought to an end 20 years of civil warin the Sudan, this country continues to experience smaller-scale conflicts, particularly aroundaccess to and control of natural resources. Some observers lay the blame for this onethnopolitical or tribal divisions. However, this paper argues that there are a variety of factors atplay behind these conflicts, notably the combination of resource scarcity with a crisis ofgovernance that is particularly evident in transitional areas like the Kordofan region.To gain a sense of the range of conflicts around natural resources in Kordofan, theauthors reviewed existing records such as government archives; conducted interviews withpoliticians, federal and state government officials, farmers, pastoralists, and NativeAdministration leaders; and investigated findings in the field. Interviews also served to examinepeople’s knowledge about government natural resource policies and their perceptions of the rolesplayed by government and the Native Administration in conflict management and resolution.The paper presents 20 cases of stalemate competition or open conflict over naturalresources in Kordofan. The cases center on (1) conflicts between farmers and herders over stockroutes, gum arabic forests, gardens, watering points, and the use of dars (tribal homelands); (2)conflicts between herders and small farmers and government agents or large private investorsover mechanized farming areas, oil infrastructure, and other private investments.In their analysis of natural resource governance in Sudan, the authors find that naturalresources policies have often been weak foundations for sustainable resource use, and in somecases they have actually contributed to conflict. In addition, the volatile path of governmentdevolution efforts concerning natural resources has undermined governance of these resources.While conflicts between farmers and herders were managed relatively successful in thepast through customary land tenure systems, this is less and less the case today as a result oflarger herds, reduced water and pasture, instability and prejudices stirred up by the war, and aproliferation of arms among herders. In addition, patron–client politics, weak natural resourcemanagement and development policies, and top-down government institutions have encouragedethnic polarization and social divisions. The authors find that measures are needed to reform theprocess of natural resource management, making land use planning more comprehensive,building on local livelihood systems, and increasing public spending on infrastructure. Inaddition, sustainable property rights on farmland and on mobile resources should be redefined,and informal conflict management mechanisms restored to the extent that this is possible.
