Analyzing inputs from 1600+ Survey Resondents

Written By Surge Africa

Why the CSO-Led Declaraion Must be Driven by Ground Voices

General Trends

Respondents represented a cohort of 28 countries.

A majority are based in Africa (61%) or Europe (20%,), with Europe‑based colleagues generally working in non‑European contexts. Additional respondents were based in Latin America, Middle East or Asia.

Kenya was the most represented country (470 responses), with Nigeria (206), and Cameroon(196).

Results on Land-related Insecurity

Drivers of land degradation

The three most frequently cited drivers are:

  • Unsustainable farming or grazing practices (76%,)

  • Deforestation (76%)

  • Climate change impacts (74%)

These trends highlight how land degradation is shaped simultaneously by local land‑use pressures and broader climatic shifts. Respondents also identified poor land‑use planning and rapid urban expansion (64%) as significant contributors, underscoring the role of governance, zoning, and infrastructure decisions in accelerating land loss. Mining activities (32%) were noted as a growing source of degradation in several contexts, particularly where regulatory oversight is weak.

Interestingly, respondents added armed conflict and military activities as well as missing land and tree tenure as key drivers of land degradation.

Relationship between land, peace and security

Across the responses, there is a strong consensus that land degradation and insecurity are closely intertwined. 72% of respondents reported a strong connection between the two, while 22% observed a moderate connection and 6% a slight one. This reflects a broad recognition that environmental decline is directly shaping conflict dynamics, social tensions, and livelihood insecurity in frontline contexts.

A clear majority (74%) reported that land‑related insecurity has increased over the past five years, citing escalating pressures on land, climate impacts, and growing competition over natural resources. Only 17% (observed stability, and 6% reported a decrease.

When asked about the specific pathways, respondents most frequently cited:

  • Land‑related conflict (74%)

  • Inequality and exclusion (62%)

  • Migration and displacement (64%)

Importantly, half emphasized that land restoration has peacebuilding potential, noting that improved land health can strengthen community resilience, reduce tensions, and create shared incentives for cooperation.

Governance gaps on land, peace and security

  • An overwhelming 80% of respondents highlighted weak institutional capacity as the most significant governance gap. This includes limited ability to mediate disputes, enforce land rights, or coordinate across sectors, factors that often allow tensions to escalate unchecked.

  • Respondents pointed to a cluster of governance failures that compound insecurity: (i) Corruption and elite capture (58%), (ii) Lack of enforcement of land laws (71%), (iii) Marginalization of vulnerable groups (62%). These issues often result in unequal access to land, contested claims, and the exclusion of women, youth, Indigenous peoples, and pastoralist communities from decision‑making processes.

  • More than half of respondents (58%) identified unclear or insecure land tenure as a key factor driving disputes and undermining sustainable land management

  • Respondents also noted poor coordination across institutions (50%) and limited accountability mechanisms (42%) as secondary gaps. 

  • Additional concerns by respondents included (i) Lack of tree tenure, limiting incentives for restoration, (ii) Conflicts between national statutory laws and customary systems, (iii) The cost of war as remedial is costly 

Priority actions and UNCCD’s role on Land, Peace and Security

Priority actions

The top priority identified is investing in sustainable land management and restoration to reduce resource pressures and rebuild ecosystem resilience (79%). Respondents see restoration not only as an environmental intervention but as a foundation for stability, livelihoods, and long‑term peace.

A second cluster of priorities focuses on strengthening the systems that underpin equitable and peaceful land governance:

  • Expanding CSA, grazing, and forestry to reduce vulnerability and inequality (74%).

  • Improving land tenure, rights, and conflict‑resolution mechanisms, ensuring communities have secure access to land and fair pathways to resolve disputes. (74%).

  • Facilitating dialogue, joint resource management, and peacebuilding initiatives, particularly in areas where competition over land fuels tensions. (71%,)

Respondents also emphasized the importance of enhancing local capacity, strengthening early warning systems, and building inclusive decision‑making processes for land and peace (68%). These actions reflect a recognition that frontline communities must be equipped and empowered to manage risks and shape solutions.

Securing sustained funding for land restoration, peacebuilding, and community‑led initiatives was also seen as essential (65%). When asked about preferred financial mechanisms:

  • Blended finance was the most frequently cited option (74%).

  • Public funding came second (64%) and community contribution third (47%)

  • Private investment was less common but still notable (36%).

On a second tier of importance, respondents highlighted the need to:

  • Foster collaboration between actors (49%)

  • Provide support for displaced populations (42%)

  • Align policies, institutions, and frameworks to integrate land, peace, and security (32%)

Participants also suggested additional actions such as reducing overly restrictive forestry regulations and ensuring continuous public education on climate change.

Read Full Report Here

Surge Africa https://www.surgeafrica.org
Previous