Relational approach to the climate narratives and pastoral conflicts: an analysis of 2004–2013 Samburu-Pokot conflict

The relationship between climate change and violent conflict, particularly climate-induced conflict grounded in neo-Malthusian environmentalist assumptions, has been debated since the end of the Cold War. This debate has been prominent in drought-affected regions such as the Sahel and the Horn of Africa, where pastoralists have been central. This study examines the link between climate change and conflicts among pastoralists, focusing on the clashes between the Samburu and Pokot in North-Central Kenya in 2004. A relational approach was employed. Fieldwork was conducted to analyse 129 cases from 2004 to 2013 and to assess their relationship with rainfall data for the same period. The analysis revealed a general correlation: more severe conflicts occurred during periods of heavier rainfall. Monthly aggregated data further indicated that conflict intensity decreased during dry periods. Contrary to dominant climate narratives—which suggest that drought-induced scarcity escalate violence—the findings support earlier studies highlighting a higher risk of conflict during wetter periods. Annual data analysis suggests that the motivation for conflict may centre on territorial acquisition, politically incited by elites exploiting climate narratives, rather than livestock raiding. In conclusion, greater emphasis should be placed on understanding pastoralists who construct dynamic hybrid networks of environment, politics, and pastoralism, rather than applying universal climate narratives indiscriminately. Pastoralists do not simply accept a linear path from scarcity to violence but implement risk-reduction strategies, avoiding conflicts during dry periods. Policies should support pastoralists’ potential as reliability professionals while minimising political incitement exploiting climate narratives.