1 Introduction1
This chapter analyses the challenges faced in the building of inter-sectoral coalitions between social movements that struggle against the expansion of the extractive frontier in the mining and the agrarian sectors. Extractive activities have become a core feature of many economies in the global South in recent decades (Greco, 2020; Burchardt and Dietz, 2014). The extractivist logic
As a reaction to the expansion of extractive agro-industrial and mining projects, numerous protest movements have sprung up throughout many countries in the global South since the mid-2000s (Sändig, 2021; Conde, 2017; Engels, 2022). Protest movements regarding both agro-industrial and mining projects are similarly concerned with issues of land and land use, questions of access and control, and the challenge of sustaining land-based livelihoods in the context of an expanding extractivist frontier, as well as with broader emancipatory developmental pathways for the countryside (Prause and Le Billon, 2021; Kapoor, 2022). However, despite these similarities in motives and goals, coalitions between movements in the agrarian and the mining sectors have, to the best of my knowledge, so far not been reported and analysed in the literature. While this does not necessarily mean that they are non-existent, such coalitions seem to be at least rare (see Borras, 2016).
This lack of inter-sectoral coalitions is problematic for movements that struggle for a non-extractivist development path for the countryside, since coalitions are among the most important tactical tools available to social movements (Gawerc, 2021). They enable the sharing of networks, resources, expertise, and information, and strengthen abilities to mobilise (McCammon and Moon, 2015). Coalitions can act as ‘transformative encounters’ that produce or induce wider social change or provide an opportunity for learning and knowledge exchange (Berriane and Duboc, 2019). In particular, coalitions between diverse groups and transnational or translocal coalitions can lead to broader-based mobilisations, which can heighten movements’ visibility and legitimacy (Gawerc, 2021; Tarrow, 2005; Temper, 2019). The literature stresses
At the same time, the broader debate on the expansion of the extractive frontier in agriculture and in mining shows that both sectors are increasingly entangled. There are growing spatial overlaps between both industries and they often compete over access to key input resources, in particular water (Le Billon and Sommerville, 2017). Large mining projects also often endanger local subsistence and small-scale food production because of the land they use, the water resources they need, and their often negative environmental consequences. Such ‘colliding ecologies’ (Kirsch, 2014, 15) are not limited to the vicinity of the mine. Polluted waterways can also have negative impacts on agricultural production in regions that lie downstream. Finally, several contributions have shown the close interlinkages between artisanal mining and small-scale farming as often complementary and sometimes contradictory rural livelihoods strategies (Pijpers, 2014; Mkodzongi and Spiegel, 2019).
In view of the similarities between agrarian extractivist projects and mining projects and of the interlinkages between both sectors, forming cross-sectoral coalitions between agrarian and non-agrarian actors might be a key tactical tool for social movements that are struggling against dispossessions and for the protection of local livelihoods and emancipatory development paths for the countryside (Borras, 2016). Thus, activists as well as critical academics need to pay more attention to the potential and challenges of horizontal alliances and the ‘coalitional politics of resistance to dispossession’ (Kapoor, 2022, 346) on extractive frontiers. This chapter therefore aims to put forward a first exploratory attempt at explaining why such inter-sectoral coalitions are, despite the many similarities between movements in the agrarian and the mining sector, difficult to establish. Drawing on my own field research in Senegal, I investigate two movements, one struggling against large-scale land transformations for agro-industrial projects, the other contesting large-scale mining operations. I use this case study to gain insights into the challenges faced when building coalitions between movements that are struggling against different types of extractive projects, and thereby show what hinders the scaling up of political struggles in a way that would transcend a sectoral logic and tackle the development vision of extractivism more broadly.
My analysis of these two movements is based on 65 interviews and seven focus group discussions that I conducted during four field trips in Senegal in April–May 2014, February–April 2015, March–May 2016 and November 2021. In 2020, I also conducted two interviews using teleconferencing tools. Many interviewees were members of movements active in conflicts regarding agro-industrial projects and industrial mines in Senegal. They included members of local communities that were engaged in resistance actions against agro-industrial and mining projects, and representatives of national and international non-governmental organisations (ngos) and the national peasant federation. I also conducted interviews with state representatives and representatives of corporations active in mining and agro-industrial projects. The case study is also based on a thorough review of national Senegalese press reports on land and mining conflicts in the country and on the reform processes of the land and mining law, as well as of documents published by pwyp and by crafs and of these movements’ social media accounts.
The chapter is structured as follows. I first develop my theoretical framework based on approaches from social movement studies and critical agrarian studies to identify factors that impede coalition building between different movements. In the empirical section, I then introduce the two main protest movements in the agrarian and the mining sector in Senegal—crafs and pwyp—and show that they struggle to attain similar goals and use comparable protest strategies. In subsequent sections, I identify factors that, despite these similarities between the movements, hinder closer collaboration and coalition building in Senegal. I conclude by highlighting key challenges for coalition building, and reflect upon the necessity to acknowledge the specific impacts
2 Analytical Framework: Building Coalitions in the Countryside
To understand the challenges faced by efforts to build inter-sectoral movement coalitions in the countryside, I draw on approaches from social movement studies and critical agrarian studies. While the former offers a general understanding of the factors facilitating and impeding coalition building, its approaches have mainly been developed drawing on urban social movements in the global North and lack the analytical tools necessary to grasp the agrarian and rural structures in which movements engaged in struggles centred on extractive projects in the global South are embedded. Approaches from critical agrarian studies allow us to understand the structural changes that are induced by an expansion of capitalist relations and extractivist logics in the countryside.
I understand coalitions as a ‘kind of coordination within and between movements that entails closer activist relationships than networks but looser ties than mergers’ (Daphi, Anderl and Deitelhoff, 2019, 2). The identities of the groups involved as well as their organisational structures remain separate, but they do engage in cooperative joint action (Tarrow, 2005; McCammon and Moon, 2015). With the term inter-sectoral coalitions, I refer to coalitions between movements that are active with regard to (partially) different issues, but are united by shared goals and seek to engage in joint planning and actions (Beamish and Luebbers, 2009). These include, for example, coalitions between environmental and labour movements (Obach, 2004), between peasant and indigenous organisations (Brent, 2015) and, in the case of this chapter, between agrarian and anti-mining movements. With the term ‘social movement’, I refer to collectivities acting with some degree of organisation and continuity outside of institutional channels for the purpose of challenging or defending extant authority (Snow, Soule and Kriesi, 2004, 11). I use the terms ‘movement’, ‘protest movement’ and ‘social movement’ interchangeably throughout the chapter.
The literature on social movements has shown that inter-sectoral movement coalitions are often brought about by critical issues that affect various movements (Veltmeyer, 2004), and are facilitated by shared goals and protest strategies (Van Dyke and McCammon, 2010). Hindering factors for inter-sectoral coalitions (and coalitions more generally) include distinct and narrow beliefs and identities. These might inhibit coalition building even if broad
Studies from the field of critical agrarian studies stress the social class origin of social movements as another key factor influencing coalition building between different movements (Borras, Edelman and Kay, 2008; Borras, 2010). Different class affiliations shape the interests, goals and identities of various social groups when it comes to land-based extractivist projects . Land means different things to different groups of people, depending on their social class. For small-scale land users, it is a means of production and reproduction and a central source of livelihoods; for investors or large-scale landholders, it constitutes a commodity and a site of investment (Dietz and Engels, 2020). Social
Furthermore, while the rural poor have long been perceived as being mainly peasants; this perception does not adequately reflect the complex and diverse livelihoods of people in the countryside, who combine different activities such as fishery, pastoralism, artisanal mining or wage labour in both the agricultural and the non-agricultural sector. Henry Bernstein (2010) therefore talks about ‘classes of labor’ that encompass those who have to pursue their reproduction through increasingly scarce wage employment or a range of precarious small-scale and insecure survival activities. These ‘classes of labor’ do not have a pre-existing form of class consciousness or a sense of collective identity, especially since class relations intersect and combine with other social differences and divisions, such as gender, race, or ethnicity (Bernstein, 2010). Thus, even if the class affiliations of two movements are not as different from each other as are, for example, those of peasants and of large-scale landholders, movement actors nevertheless need to actively shape a collective identity if their aim is to mobilise the diverse groups belonging to these classes of labour (Borras, Edelman and Kay, 2008).
These approaches from social movement studies and critical agrarian studies have shown us key facilitating and hindering factors with regard to coalition building. Shared goals, broad, cross-cutting issues, and similar protest strategies as well as social ties and shared geographical and policy spaces of movement action all facilitate coalition building. Their absence, in turn, makes coalition building more difficult. Distinct and narrow beliefs and identities as well as different class origins of movements’ bases can also hinder successful coalition building.
3 Protest Movements Contesting Extractive Projects in Senegal
In response to rising investment in extractive agro-industrial and mining projects in Senegal, two new national movements formed, bringing together a variety of actors that were already active in the agrarian and the mining sector but that had not yet formed a formal network. The agrarian movement crafs was formed on April 28, 2011 (crafs, 2016). The roughly 20 organisations that participate in crafs include associations of land users who were affected by and opposed to large-scale agrarian extractivist projects, national organisations (mainly ngos and think tanks), and the national peasant association the Conseil National de Concertation et de coopération des Ruraux (National
In the mining sector, meanwhile, 25 civil society organisations came together in 2015 to establish the national chapter of pwyp. In Senegal, pwyp is mainly comprised of local and national ngos and the national sections of international ngos such as Amnesty International. The most influential national mining-related ngo in the early years of the movement has been La Lumière, whose president also served as the president of pwyp. Unlike crafs, pwyp Senegal is part of an international network. This network promotes transparency and environmental protection in the mining sector and the fair transfer of mining levies to the local communities concerned (pwyp, 2017). Like crafs, pwyp is active at the national level and is also involved in local actions, in this case with regard to specific mines. These are located mainly in the region of Kédougou in the south-east of the country and to a lesser degree in the area of Ndiaye, in the region of Thiès.
Even though these two movements developed in a similar time frame and both came together in reaction to the expansion of the extractive frontier, formal inter-sectoral coalitions between the movements and their member organisations—or even lengthy periods of collaboration—have yet to be realised. The following sections aim to answer why closer collaboration between the two movements has not occurred.
3.1 Goals and Strategies
The literature on social movements highlights shared goals and protest strategies as being key for the facilitation of coalitions. crafs formulated two central goals for its struggle. The first was to stop or downsize large-scale land transactions to international and national investors. crafs did not reject land transactions outright. Rather, it criticised the size, non-inclusivity, and negative impacts on local communities of the larger land deals and aimed to secure
pwyp formulated similar goals to crafs in some respects, but there were also some important differences. Like crafs, pwyp does not reject investments in large-scale mining projects outright. Rather, its main concern is to protect local communities from adverse impacts such as pollution or resettlement, and to secure access to land for rural communities.3 pwyp’s goals differ from those of crafs, however, in that the former movement does not propose an alternative vision of how to use the land now mined by the mining companies. Instead, pwyp aims to ensure that local communities derive some form of benefit from these mining activities and receive other lands by way of compensation. Regarding the process of reforming mining law, there were yet again strong similarities between the respective goals of the two movements. pwyp also struggled for a more participatory reform process—this time with respect to the reform of mining law, a process from which civil society actors had initially been excluded—and for a mining law that would guarantee access to and control over land for communities affected by large-scale mining. pwyp, though, went further than crafs, stressing the importance of financial benefits for these communities—in the form of a community fund that would distribute a part of mining revenues among them—and of higher mining revenues for the state in general (Agence de Presse Sénégalaise, 2015; La Lumière, 2008).
crafs used four core strategies in its struggle. First, it organised a large-scale, bottom-up process including workshops with peasants and pastoralists in all regions of Senegal in order to develop propositions for the land reform, which it was to bring to the negotiating table in 2016. Second, crafs organised and supported several demonstrations against large-scale land allocations
pwyp strategies were very similar, if generally less inclusive of local land users. First, pwyp also developed its own proposals for the reform process and struggled for the right to be heard by the commission in question—a demand that was finally granted in 2015. pwyp’s development of civil society proposals was, however, expert based and thus far less participatory, and it did not have the same mobilising effect for rural communities as was the case in the agrarian sector. Second, pwyp supported local community struggles centred on industrial mines, mainly on gold mines in the region of Kédougou and phosphate and zircon mines in the area of Niayes, where its member organisations mounted protests, lobbying, and media campaigns (ej Atlas, 2018a; 2018b). Unlike crafs, pwyp did not systematically attempt to connect collectives of local land users; it did, however, engage in lobbying, contacting politicians and traditional authorities.
This brief overview of the two movements and their involvement in struggles regarding the expansion of extractive projects in the mining and the agricultural sector has revealed many commonalities: both aimed to secure land access for smallholders, using similar strategies of engaging with community struggles and becoming active in the national law reform process. Despite some clear overlap in goals and strategies there are, however, important differences between pwyp and crafs that might impede the building of coalitions between them. In terms of goals, pwyp invests more in securing local communities’ access to and control over the benefits and revenues generated by extractive projects. While this point is a core aspect of struggles in the mining sector, it barely plays any role in its agrarian counterpart. crafs, meanwhile, has developed a vision of alternative land use based on smallholder agriculture, while pwyp has not. In terms of strategies, it is important to note that the crafs approach has a stronger bottom-up character regarding both engagement in the reform process and the organisation of protests against specific land transactions.
3.2
Differences in class positions has been identified in the critical agrarian studies literature as a key challenge to coalition building. While a systematic sociological analysis of the social bases and class composition of both the movements being examined is beyond the scope of this chapter, the claims, in this regard, of pwyp and crafs show that each aims to represent groups of land users that have similar class positions but that practice partially different land-based livelihoods. Members of crafs claim that the movement represents mainly poor peasants and family and smallholder farmers, as well as pastoralists engaged in family-based, often semi-nomadic cattle breeding and milk production. The interests of medium-sized or large-scale farming or large-scale, industrial cattle breeders or dairy producers, as well as those of workers who are formally or informally employed in the agricultural sector, are not prominently represented bythe movement (crafs, 2016).
In order to bring pastoralists and peasants, two groups that often have conflicting interests when it comes to land use, together in the struggle against large-scale land transactions, crafs used the term ‘rural producers’. This term was originally developed by the national peasant federation, cncr. The idea of rural producers was proposed with the aim of expanding a purely peasant-based identity to include other agrarian and food-producing activities (cncr, 2018). The term encompasses pastoralists, peasants, and fishers.4 While this collective identity of rural producers does succeed in grouping together a broad range of food producers and agriculturalists, it nevertheless tends to exclude other forms of rural livelihoods, and such exclusion is a frequent issue for agrarian movements (see Borras, Edelman and Kay, 2008).
In Senegal, one of the key land-based livelihoods excluded from this collective identity is that of artisanal miners. Next to small-scale farming and pastoralism, artisanal mining is one of the key livelihood activities practiced in the gold mining region of Senegal. It has traditionally been practiced to generate additional household income in the dry season, alongside small-scale agriculture (Niang, 2014). Since the rise in gold prices in the mid-2000s, artisanal gold mining has become the primary household income generating activity in many communities living in the area of the two industrial gold mines in Kédougou (Persaud et al., 2017; Prause, 2016). Artisanal gold miners occupy
In Kédougou artisanal miners make up an important constituency of the pwyp member organisations active in the region5 and thus it was important that they be included in the collective identity of the movement. Rather than constructing its collective identity around the land-based livelihood activities of its constituency, pwyp opted to construct it around the external factor of large-scale mining. pwyp describes itself as a coalition representing the interests of communities affected by industrial mines, and tends to depict these communities as victims of large transnational corporations.6 This collective identity is more inclusive, in terms of the land-based activities that local community members are engaged in, than the ‘rural producers’ identity of crafs. It still, however, excludes communities that suffer from the adverse effects of other kinds of land investment. So, while the differences in class bases between pwyp and crafs do not necessarily constitute a challenge to inter-sectoral coalition building, the respective collective identities constructed by the two organisations are divisive as each excludes key constituencies of the other movement.
3.3 A Lack of Social Ties
An important element of any effort to overcome differences in identities, strategies, or goals between movements are the social ties and inter-movement familiarity that enable a collaborative negotiation process to take place (Obach, 2010). Such social ties between pwyp and crafs were largely lacking. Even though one organisation, Rencontre Africaine pour la Défense des Droits de l’Homme (African Assembly for the Defence of Human Rights (raddho)), was a member of both movements, and Oxfam was a donor to both coalitions, there are no records of official meetings between crafs and pwyp. Some representatives of organisations involved in either crafs and pwyp that I interviewed stated that they did know by name some of their counterparts in the other movement, and a few reported having briefly come across one another at conferences or workshops. Regular meetings, though, were not reported, and
One explanation for the overall lack of social ties between the organisations active in crafs and in pwyp is the different geographies of struggle in the mining and the agrarian sector. Some key organisations active in struggles over mines do not have their offices in the capital, Dakar, but in the cities of Tambacounda and Kédougou, which are located in Senegal’s gold mining region. These regions are only poorly connected by road infrastructure with Dakar, where most of the member organisations of crafs have their offices. Furthermore, community-based struggles regarding mining were, at least until 2016, concentrated in the gold mining area of Kédougou. Only in recent years have conflicts over industrial mines intensified in the phosphate mining region of Thiès, north of the captial. Struggles regarding agro-industrial projects are largely located in the region of St-Louis along the Senegal River delta and in Thiès in the area of Niayes, since these are the areas with the best conditions for agro-industrial production, with easy access to water and infrastructure (Benegiamo, 2020; Bourgoin et al., 2019).
Thus, personal meetings between representatives of ngos from each sector, as well as between those of the grassroots collectives active in struggles with regard to local agro-industrial and mining projects, respectively, are difficult to arrange due to the different geographical locations of the struggles themselves and the different locations of these organisations’ headquarters. This might change though. In the past few years there has been increasing overlap between industrial phosphate and zircon mining and agro-industrial activities in the area of Niayes. This spatial overlap might provide fertile ground for closer inter-sectoral collaboration. It is thus also in Niayes that the crafs member organisations cicodev (The Pan-African Institute for Citizenship, Consumers, and Development), enda Pronat (Association pour l’Environnement et Developpement Action pour une Protection Naturelle des Terroirs–Association for the Environment and Development Action for the Natural Protection of Lands) and cncr have become active in struggles regarding mines—thus far, however, without building longer-term coalitions with the pwyp member organisations that are also involved in these struggles.
Finally, each movement operates in different policy spaces. The use of land for agricultural or for mining purposes is regulated in Senegal by different laws, and governed by different institutions. This is not unique to Senegal. In fact, it is the norm in most countries (Le Billon and Sommerville, 2017). In Senegal, the mining code regulates land use and land transactions for mining purposes, and the leading bureaucratic and regulatory agency is the Ministry for Industries and Mining. The land law regulates land use and transactions for agro-industrial purposes, and the leading agency is the Ministry for Agriculture and Rural Development. This means that the activities of pwyp and of crafs take place in different policy spaces and are directed at different state agencies. This division became most apparent in each organisation’s engagement with the processes of reforming the land law and the mining code, respectively. For both movements, these reform processes constituted important institutional opportunities to bring their demands to the policy arena, and they sparked significant activity and mobilisation from each movement. Even though these processes took place in a similar time frame, there was, however, no overlap between the activities of pwyp and of crafs. Instead, each movement struggled for access to the respective law reform commissions and fought to have its own suggestions included in the discussions and their results, which once again left few opportunities for exchange and the formation of social ties.
4
Building inter-sectoral coalitions between movements contesting extractive projects in the mining and the agrarian sector might be key to the success of struggles for an emancipatory transformation of the countryside. Not only do many governments pursue parallel extractivist development paths in the agrarian and in the mining sector that threaten rural livelihoods and risk deepening social inequalities in the countryside, both sectors are also closely intertwined. Mining activities often impact (both small-and large-scale) agricultural activities negatively because of their need for resources, mainly water, and their negative environmental impacts, including water and soil pollution. Furthermore, small-scale mining and small-scale farming are strongly interdependent as livelihood strategies for rural households.
My analysis has revealed some key challenges for such coalitions: First, even though investments in mining and in agriculture are both characterised by an extractivist logic, the consequences of these respective activities for land and nature differ, which provides different incentives for movements active in the respective sectors. While open-pit gold mining, as it is practiced in Senegal, makes it virtually impossible to use the land for agriculture in the future, the negative consequences, for the environment and for soil fertility, of agro-industrial extractivist projects are, over time, at least partially reversable. Agriculture, even in its extractive form, is still based on cultivation, and its physical effects on nature thus differ from those of mining (Boyd, Prudham and Schurman, 2001). Thus, when Ye et al. (2020, 155) define extraction as value generation that is followed by barrenness and an inability to sustainably reproduce livelihoods, it is important to note that this inability can have very different time frames in the agrarian and the mining sector. Second, state income generated by mining through taxes and royalty payments is not comparable to the considerably lower amounts paid by agricultural businesses for lease agreements. Thus, different regulation and different amounts in rents in each sector as well as the different impacts on land and nature set different incentives for movements and their formulation of demands and goals. In Senegal, the agrarian movement emphasised alternative, non-extractive visions for future land use. While the anti-mining movement stressed access to mining rents, compensation payments, and access to alternative land.
The literature on social movements’ coalitions clearly shows that social ties between movements are key to any efforts to overcome such differences regarding goals, ideologies, or identities. In Senegal, the establishment of these ties was hampered by the different histories and geographies of
This points to certain particularities of struggles centred on agriculture and mining. Investments in these sectors are place-bound (Le Billon and Sommerville, 2017). Thus, different geographies of struggle might be a more important hinderance to the establishment of coalitions than it is in other areas of political struggle. Furthermore, it is not only differing policy spaces that prove challenging for attempts at coalition building. The different regulations of the agrarian and the mining sector also provide different incentives for movements’ claim-making activities from the outset. Policies thus not only structure the spaces of negotiation as Obach (2004) argues, but also influence what is negotiated in the first place.
This, in turn, points to an important debate within the literature on extraction. Many authors currently emphasise how extractive logic is now characteristic of global capitalism as a whole, and that it is no longer specific to the extractive industries (Yen et al., 2020; Mezzadra and Neilson, 2017). However, in order to understand resistance to and struggles against extractive projects it is important to pay close attention to differences regarding political regulation, economic histories, place, and impacts on land and nature across a range of extractive projects. Rather than only focusing upon the commonalities of extractive projects, it is necessary to also look at their specificities, and to acknowledge that extractive logics can, on the ground, play out quite differently, and that they therefore also provide very particular challenges for acts of political struggle. Only by acknowledging such differences can we understand what hampers coalition building between movements struggling against extraction, and identify avenues via which these hampering elements might be overcome. In order to strengthen future attempts at coalition building, a focus on shared policy spaces relevant across sectors, such as environmental or water-related policies, the construction of more inclusive collective identities for rural land users and communities, and a broader vision of non-extractive rural development might all constitute important starting points.
5
In the context of an expanding extractive frontier in the mining and the agricultural sector, particularly in the global South, building coalitions that span both sectors is a key challenge for social movements’ attempts to successfully prevent dispossessions, protect local livelihoods, and foster non-extractivist developmental paths for the future countryside. This chapter has investigated the factors hindering closer inter-sectoral collaboration and coalition building through a case study of two movements, crafs and pwyp, in Senegal. crafs and pwyp share broad goals such as the protection of access to and control over land for local land users vis-à-vis extractive projects, and similar types of organisational structures, similar protest strategies, and similar class bases. So why have they not formed a coalition against land dispossessions?
The analysis presented here has shown that some of the goals espoused by crafs and by pwyp were none the less different between the two movements, and that the social ties necessary for each to overcome such differences were lacking due to their different histories and geographies of struggle as well as to the different policy spaces the two movements operated in. The analysis has also shown that the collective identities constructed by each movement with the aim of bringing together the classes of labour each represents were mutually exclusive. The agrarian movement built an identity based on the notion of food producers; the anti-mining movement one built around the fact of being a victim of industrial multinational mining corporations. This echoes challenges faced by other agrarian movements—including the transnational movement La Via Campesina—in their efforts to extend their identities to groups of rural poor who do not fit the notion of agrarian and food producers, including rural workers, or, in the case of Senegal, artisanal miners (see also Borras, 2016).
The analysis in this chapter has also highlighted the usefulness of bringing approaches from social movement studies together with approaches from critical agrarian studies when studying anti-extractivist movements in the countryside. Only by combining both these theoretical traditions can we understand the specific conditions and constituencies that social movements work with in rural spaces in the global South.
My analysis also points to some more practical implications, particularly for international, multi-issue ngos, but also for sympathetic development agencies. These often support and work with movements in both the mining and the agrarian sector, and thus could play an important role in facilitating coalition building. In view of the separate policy spaces movements in the agrarian and the mining sector usually engage in, such organisations and agencies could provide neutral spaces for open and respectful dialog between movements,
The author declares no conflict of interest. The work that contributes to this chapter was supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research as part of two funding lines: ‘Bioeconomy as Societal Change’ [fkz 031B0750] and ‘Global Change’ [Grant Number fkz 01ln1302A].
Source: interview with representatives of a member organisation of crafs, Dakar, 4 February 2015.
Source: interviews with the president of pwyp Senegal—Tambacounda, 6 March 2015; 8 April 2016.
Fisher communities in certain villages on the coastal strip between Dakar and St-Louis have started to organise resistance to the offshore exploitation of gas and oil, which is supposed to begin within the next several years. These same communities have, however, so far not been concerned either with large-scale land transformations for agro-industrial purposes or with the land reform process, and have not been a prominent force within crafs.
Source: interviews with representatives of pwyp member organisations, 19 April 2016, 5 March 2015, and 14 April 2016.
Source: interviews with pwyp representatives, Tambacounda, 06 March 2015 and 08 April 2016, and with representatives of a pwyp member organisation, Kédougou, 05 March 2015 and 12 April 2016.
Source: interviews with representatives of a crafs member organisation, Dakar, 12 February 2016 and by telephone on 24 October 2020, and with representatives of a pwyp member organisation, Tambacounda, 8 April 2016.
Acknowledgements
I am very grateful to Jan Brunner, Sarah Kirst and Mario Schenk for their valuable comments on an earlier draft of this chapter. I would also like to thank the Initiative Prospective Agricole et Rural (ipar) particularly Dr Aminata Niang, the West Africa office of the Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung, enda Pronat, the Collectif de Ndiael, and Dr Lamine Diallo for support during my fieldwork.
References
Agence de Presse Sénégalaise (2015) ‘Sénégal: « Publiez ce que vous payez » veut être impliquée dans le processus de réforme du Code Minier’, http://fr.allafrica.com/stories/201506011340.html (accessed on 4 October 2017).
Anseeuw, W., M. Boche, T. Breu, M. Giger, J. Lay, P. Messerli and K. Nolte (2012) Transnational Land Deals for Agriculture in the Global South. Analytical Report Based on the Land Matrix Database (Bern, Montpellier and Hamburg: cde/cirad/giga).
Anyidoho, N.A. and G. Crawford (2014) ‘Leveraging National and Global Links for Local Rights Advocacy: wacam’s Challenge to the Power of Transnational Gold Mining in Ghana’, Canadian Journal of Development Studies, 35(4), pp. 483–502, doi: 10.1080/02255189.2014.936369.
Bandy, J. and J. Smith (2005) Coalitions Across Borders: Transnational Protest and the Neoliberal Order (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield).
Beamish, T.D. and A.J. Luebbers (2009) ‘Alliance Building across Social Movements: Bridging Difference in a Peace and Justice Coalition’, Social Problems, 56(4), pp. 647–676, doi: 10.1525/sp.2009.56.4.647.
Benegiamo, M. (2020) ‘Extractivism, Exclusion and Conflicts in Senegal’s Agro-Industrial Transformation’, Review of African Political Economy, 47(166), pp. 522–544, doi: 10.1080/03056244.2020.1794661.
Bernstein, H. (2010) Class Dynamics of Agrarian Change (Halifax NS; Fernwood/Sterling VA: Kumarian Press).
Berriane, Y. and M. Duboc (2019) ‘Allying beyond social divides: an introduction to contentious politics and coalitions in the Middle East and North Africa’, Mediterranean Politics, 24(4), pp. 399–419, doi: 10.1080/13629395.2019.1639022.
Borras, S.M. (2016) Land Politics, Agrarian Movements and Scholar-Activism, Inaugural Lecture 14 April 2016 (Den Haag: International Institute of Social Studies).
Borras, S.M. (2010) ‘The Politics of Transnational Agrarian Movements’, Development and Change, 41(5), pp. 771–803, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7660.2010.01661.x.
Borras, S.M., M. Edelman and C. Kay (2008) ‘Transnational Agrarian Movements: Origins and Politics, Campaigns and Impact’, Journal of Agrarian Change, 8(2–3), pp. 169–204, doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0366.2008.00167.x.
Bourgoin, J., E. Valette, S. Guillouet, D. Diop and D. Dia (2019) ‘Improving Transparency and Reliability of Tenure Information for Improved Land Governance in Senegal’, Land, 8(3), doi: 10.3390/land8030042.
Boyd, W., W.S. Prudham and R.A. Schurman (2001) ‘Industrial Dynamics and the Problem of Nature’, Society & Natural Resources, 14(7), pp. 555–570, doi: 10.1080/08941920120686.
Brent, Z.W. (2015) ‘Territorial Restructuring and Resistance in Argentina’, The Journal of Peasant Studies, 42(3–4), pp. 671–94, doi: 10.1080/03066150.2015.1013100.
Burchardt, H.-J. and K. Dietz (2014) ‘(Neo-)extractivism—a new challenge for development theory from Latin America’, Third World Quarterly, 35(3), pp. 468–486, doi: 10.1080/01436597.2014.893488.
cncr (Conseil National de Concertation et de Coopération des Ruraux) (2018) ‘Présentation cncr’, https://cncr.org/qui-sommes-nous/ (accessed on 3 January 2023).
Coderre, M., M.L. Diallo, A. Diawara and B. Campbell (2019) ‘La Vision minière pour l’Afrique et les transformations des cadres règlementaires miniers: les expériences du Mali et du Sénégal’, Canadian Journal of Development Studies, 40(4), pp. 464–81, doi: 10.1080/02255189.2019.165033.
Conde, M. (2017) ‘Resistance to Mining: a Review’, Ecological Economics, 132, pp. 80–90, doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.08.025.
crafs (Cadre de Réflexion et d’Action sur le Foncier sur la réforme foncière au Sénégal) (2016) Document de position du Cadre de Réflexion et d’Action sur le Foncier sur la réforme foncière au Sénégal [‘Position Paper of the Reflection and Action Network on Land in Senegal’] (Dakar: crafs), http://hubrural.org/IMG/pdf/crafs_doc_de_position_reforme_fonciere_v.finale.pdf (accessed on 11 June 2020).
Daphi, P., F. Anderl and N. Deitelhoff (2019) ‘Bridges or Divides? Conflicts and Synergies of Coalition Building across Countries and Sectors in the Global Justice Movement’, Social Movement Studies, 21(1–2), pp. 8–24, doi: 10.1080/14742837.2019.1676223.
Diallo, M.L., N.C. Diouf and N.M. Ngom (2016) Étude sur l’exploitation artisanale des mines à Kédougou: Nouvelle réorganisation, migrations, et différentes implications [‘Study on artisanal mining in Kédougou: reorganisation, migrations, and different implications’], (Dakar: ipar).
Dietz, K. and B. Engels (2020) ‘Analysing Land Conflicts in Times of Global Crises’, Geoforum, 111, pp. 208–217, doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2020.02.019.
Durante, F., M. Kröger, and W. LaFleur (2021) ‘Extraction and Extractivism. Definitions and Concepts’, in J. Shapiro, and J.-A. McNeish (eds.) Our Extractive Age. Expressions of Violence and Resistance (Oxon and New York: Routledge), pp. 19–30.
ej Atlas (Environmental Justice Atlas) (2018a) Projet Grande Côte for Zircon and Ilmenite Mining, Senegal, https://ejatlas.org/conflict/diogo-zircon-mining-niayes-senegal (accessed on 1 October 2020).
ej Atlas (2018b) Taïba Phosphates Mine in the Fertile Gardening Area of Niayes, Senegal, https://ejatlas.org/conflict/phosphates-mining-in-the-gardening-zone-of-niayes-mboro-senegal (accessed on 1 October 2020).
enda Pronat (Association pour l’Environnement et Developpement Action pour une Protection Naturelle des Terroirs) (2020) Déclaration Commune du Collectif des 16 [Common Declaration of the Collective of the 16], May 27, https://www.endapronat.org/declaration-commune-du-collectif-des-16/ (accessed on 19 October 2020).
enda Pronat (2019) La résistance paysanne à l’accaparement des terres et le processus de la réforme foncière au Sénégal [‘Peasant resistance against land grabbing and the land reform in Senegal’], July 29, https://farmlandgrab.org/post/view/29069 (accessed on 1 October 2020).
Engels, B. (2022) ‘African Anti-mining Movements’, in D.A. Snow, D. Della Porta, D.J. McAdam and B. Klandermans (eds.) The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social and Political Movements 2e (Blackwell: Wiley), doi: 10.1002/9780470674871.wbespm667.
Engels, B. and K. Dietz (2018) ‘Structural Transformation in the Countryside’, Review of African Political Economy /roapeOnline, 9 May, http://roape.net/2018/05/09/structural-transformation-in-the-countryside/ (accessed on 1 October 2020).
Gagné, M. (2021) ‘Analysing the constraints to corporate land control: the influence of local power dynamics on a large-scale land deal in Senegal’, Canadian Journal of African Studies, 56(2), pp. 239–259, doi: 10.1080/00083968.2021.1890628.
Gawerc, M.I. (2021) ‘Coalition‐building and the forging of solidarity across difference and inequality’, Sociology Compass, 15(3), doi: 10.1111/soc4.12858.
Gerhards, J. and D. Rucht (1992) ‘Mesomobilization: Organizing and Framing in Two Protest Campaigns in West Germany’, American Journal of Sociology, 98(3), pp. 555–596, doi: 10.1086/230049.
Gingembre, M. (2015) ‘Resistance or Participation? Fighting Against Corporate Land Access amid Political Uncertainty In Madagascar’, The Journal of Peasant Studies, 42(3–4), pp. 561–584, doi: 10.1080/03066150.2015.1022867.
Greco, E. (2020) ‘Africa, Extractivism and the Crisis This Time’, Review of African Political Economy, 47(166), pp. 511–521, doi: 10.1080/03056244.2020.1859839.
itie Senegal (Initiative pour la transparence dans les Industries Extractives du Sénégal) (2019) Rapport de Conciliation 2018 (Dakar: itie).
Kapoor, D. (2022) ‘Rural dispossession and resistance in Asia and Africa’, in H. Veltmeyer, and P. Bowles (eds.) The Essential Guide to Critical Development Studies (Oxon and New York: Routledge), pp. 341–349.
Kirsch, S. (2014) Mining Capitalism. The Relationship between Corporations and Their Critics (Berkeley: University of California Press).
keoh (L’association Kédougou Encadrement Orientation et Développement Humain) (2018) Mission, Vision, Valeur, http://associationkeoh.org/keoh.php (accessed on 19 January 2018).
Lichterman, P. (1995) ‘Piecing Together Multicultural Community: Cultural Differences in Community Building among Grass-Roots Environmentalists’, Social Problems, 42(4), pp. 513–534, doi: 10.2307/3097044.
La Lumière (2008) Transparence et gestion durables des ressources naturelles au Sénégal: experience de l’ONG La Lumière [‘Transparancy and sustainable administration of natural ressources in Senegal. Experiences of the ngo La Lumière’], http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTSOCIALDEVELOPMENT/Resources/DIALLO.pdf (accessed on 8 May 2018).
Le Billon, P. and M. Sommerville (2017) ‘Landing Capital and Assembling “Investable Land” in the Extractive and Agricultural Sectors’, Geoforum, 82, pp. 212–224, doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2016.08.011.
Martiniello, G. (2015) ‘Social Struggles in Uganda’s Acholiland: Understanding Responses and Resistance to Amuru Sugar Works’, The Journal of Peasant Studies, 42(3–4), pp. 653–669, doi: 10.1142/9789813208162_0020.
McCammon, H.J. and M. Moon (2015) ‘Social Movement Coalitions’, in D. Della Porta and M. Diani (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Social Movements (Oxford: Oxford University Press), doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199678402.013.38.
McKay, B.M. (2017) ‘Agrarian Extractivism in Bolivia’, World Development, 97, pp. 199–211, doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.04.007.
McKeon, N., M. Watts and W. Wolford (2004) ‘Peasant Associations in Theory and Practice’, Civil Society and Social Movements, Programme Paper No. 8 (Geneva: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development).
Mezzadra, S. and B. Neilson (2017) ‘On the multiple frontiers of extraction: excavating contemporary capitalism’, Cultural Studies, 31(2–3), pp. 185–204, doi: 10.1080/09502386.2017.1303425.
Mkodzongi, G. and S. Spiegel (2019) ‘Artisanal Gold Mining and Farming: Livelihood Linkages and Labour Dynamics after Land Reforms in Zimbabwe’, The Journal of Development Studies, 55(10), pp. 2145–2161, doi: 10.1080/00220388.2018.1516867.
Niang, K. (2014) Dans les mines d’or du Sénégal oriental. La fin de l’orpaillage [In the Goldmines of oriental Senegal. The end of artisanal mining] (Paris: L’Harmattan).
Nolte, K., W. Chamberlain and M. Giger (2016) International Land Deals for Agriculture. Fresh Insights from the Land Matrix: Analytical Reportii (Bern, Montpellier, Hamburg and Pretoria: Centre for Development and Environment (cde), University of Bern; Centre de coopération internationale en recherche agronomique pour le développement (cirad); German Institute of Global and Area Studies (giga); University of Pretoria, Bern Open Publishing).
Obach, B. (2010) ‘Political Opportunity and Social Movement Coalitions. The Role of Policy Segmentation and Nonprofit Tax Law’, in N. Van Dyke and H.J. McCammon (eds.) Strategic Alliances, (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press), pp. 197–218.
Obach, B. (2004) Labor and the Environmental Movement: the Quest for Common Ground (Cambridge: mit Press).
Persaud, A.W., K.H. Telmer, M. Costa and M.L. Moore (2017) ‘Artisanal and Small-Scale Gold Mining in Senegal: Livelihoods, Customary Authority, and Formalization’, Society & Natural Resources, 30(8), pp. 980–993, doi: 10.1080/08941920.2016.1273417.
Pijpers, R. (2014) ‘Crops and carats: Exploring the interconnectedness of mining and agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa’, Futures, 62, pp. 32–39, doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2014.01.012.
Prause L. (2019) ‘Success and Failure of Protest Actors’ Framing Strategies in Conflicts Over Land and Mining in Senegal’, Canadian Journal of Development Studies, 40(3), pp. 387–403, doi: 10.1080/02255189.2018.1479633.
Prause, L. (2016) ‘West Africa’s Golden Future? Conflicts around gold mining in Senegal’, Natural Resources Series (Dakar: Rosa-Luxemburg Stiftung Westafrika).
Prause, L. and P. Le Billon (2021) ‘Struggles for Land: Comparing Resistance Movements against Agro-Industrial and Mining Investment Projects’, The Journal of Peasant Studies, 48(5), pp. 1100–1123, doi: 10.1080/03066150.2020.1762181.
Prause, L., S. Hackfort, and M. Lindgren (2021) ‘Digitalization and the Third Food Regime’, Agriculture and Human Values, 38(2), pp. 641–655, doi: 10.1007/s10460-020-10161-2.
pwyp (Publish What You Say) (2017) Publish What You Pay Senegal, https://www.pwyp.org/pwyp_members/senegal/ (accessed on 3 January 2023).
Renauld, M. (2016) ‘The Esquel Effect: Political Opportunity Structure and Adaptation Mechanisms in Anti-Mining Mobilisation in Argentine Patagonia’, Canadian Journal of Development Studies, 37(4), pp. 524–540, doi: 10.1080/02255189.2016.1202102.
Rose, F. (2000) Coalitions across the Class Divide: Lessons from the Labor, Peace, and Environmental Movements (London: Cornell University Press).
sadev (Solidarité Action Développement) (2018) sadev, http://sadevsenegal.blogspot.de/ (accessed on 19 January 2018). Sändig, J. (2021) ‘Contesting large-scale land acquisitions in the Global South’, World Development, 146, doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105581.
Snow, D., S. Soule and H. Kriesi (2004) ‘Mapping the Terrain’, in The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements (Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub), pp. 3–16.
Tarrow, S. (2005) The New Transnational Activism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Temper, L. (2019) ‘From boomerangs to minefields and catapults: dynamics of trans-local resistance to land-grabs’, The Journal of Peasant Studies, 46(1), pp. 188–216, doi: 10.1080/03066150.2017.1398144.
Van Dyke, N. (2003) ‘Crossing Movement Boundaries: Factors that Facilitate Coalition Protest by American College Students 1930–1990’, Social Problems, 50(2), pp. 226–250, doi: 10.1525/sp.2003.50.2.226.
Van Dyke, N. and B. Amos (2017) ‘Social Movement Coalitions: Formation, Longevity, and Success’, Sociology Compass, 11(7), doi: 10.1111/soc4.12489.
Van Dyke, N. and H.J. McCammon (2010) ‘Introduction: Social Movement Coalition Formation’, in Strategic Alliances (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press), pp. xi–xxviii.
Veltmeyer, H. (2004) Civil Society and Social Movements. The Dynamics of Intersectoral Alliances and Urban-Rural Linkages in Latin America (Geneva: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development).
Walter, M. and L. Urkidi (2017) ‘Community Mining Consultations in Latin America (2002–2012): the Contested Emergence of a Hybrid Institution for Participation’, Geoforum, 84, pp. 265–279, doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.09.007.
Ye, J., J.D. van der Ploeg, S. Schneider and T. Shanin (2020) ‘The incursions of extractivism: moving from dispersed places to global capitalism’, The Journal of Peasant Studies, 47(1), pp. 155–183, doi: 10.1080/03066150.2018.1559834.