The power of sustained dialogue

Two communities in Somalia’s Middle Shabelle region, long affected by recurring violent conflict, are once again grazing their livestock on shared land. A weekly market, shut down for years by insecurity and mistrust, is open once more. When a violent incident threatened to trigger a cycle of communal violence and revenge killings, community members intervened and prevented it. This progress grew out of a Sustained Dialogue (SD) process with key community members, facilitated by the Berghof Foundation in close collaboration with the district administrations. By building on shared environmental pressures, including drought, shrinking grazing land and depleting water sources, the SD process supported the rebuilding of trust after decades of conflict had severely eroded. 

The interplay between climate stress and conflict

Life in these communities is shaped not only by an increasingly fragile relationship between people and their environment, but also by violent conflict. Between 2022 and early 2025, more than 140 recorded violent encounters and over 1,200 fatalities underscored the intensity and persistence of insecurity. Communities depend almost entirely on natural resources, such as fishing, pastoralism and rain-fed agriculture, for their survival. Yet these livelihoods are under growing pressure from recurring droughts, erratic rainfall, desertification and environmental degradation. Grazing lands are shrinking, water sources are depleting and extreme weather conditions, from prolonged heat to advancing sand dunes, are undermining both food security and economic stability.

At the same time, communities in these locations have experienced shifting patterns of violence over time, with periods of relative calm followed by sharp escalations in conflict. A major surge in violence in late 2022 was followed by lower-intensity conflict throughout 2023–2024. In early 2025, violence escalated even further, marked by spikes in both clashes and fatalities. This reflects a broader pattern of territorial instability, where control over land and resources frequently shifts between state forces, militias and non-state armed actors. 

As resources become scarcer, competition intensifies, particularly between communities who rely on the same land and water, often in the absence of clear land ownership systems. These dynamics are further compounded by the strong presence and mobilisation of militias who play a central role in local security and conflict dynamics. Consequently, tensions have significantly intensified and increasingly escalated intercommunal conflict, with displacement, mistrust and violence further weakening social cohesion. In this context, climate stress is not only an environmental crisis but a key driver of insecurity, deeply entangled with livelihoods, governance gaps, territorial contestation and long-standing conflict dynamics.

Building dialogue from the ground up

Against this backdrop, the Berghof Foundation, in close collaboration with the district administrations, supported the establishment of two inclusive dialogue committees in June 2024, each composed of 30 representatives from the communities. Together with these committees, made up of diverse stakeholders, including elders, youth, women and religious leaders, a Sustained Dialogue (SD) process was designed, with the aim of rebuilding trust, transforming conflict dynamics and fostering joint solutions. 

Using the environment as common ground

As a first step, the process focused on intra-committee engagement for the first six months, combining integrated training on environmental and climate issues with conflict transformation and dialogue skills to prepare participants, both in terms of knowledge and readiness, to engage across divides. The team drew on the previously developed Climate Security Action Plan (CSAP) — a locally informed roadmap, developed through a participatory research process, that identifies the most pressing climate stressors and their connection to conflict, and outlines community-driven measures to prevent conflict, strengthen resilience and support sustainable peacebuilding. The CSAP and its focus on environmental stressors served as a unifying and less politicised entry point, offering a new lens through which both communities could reflect on their shared realities. This was particularly significant given that the two communities had not communicated for decades. From this starting point, the dialogue gradually expanded into deeper, facilitated exchanges across committees for the following three months, moving through phases of trust-building, joint problem analysis and the co-creation of solutions. This iterative and reflective structure enabled participants to revisit assumptions, strengthen relationships and ultimately work toward collaborative actions grounded in shared environmental concerns.

However, as the conflict escalated significantly, particularly during periods of intensified clashes and territorial contestation in late 2022 and again in early 2025, it became increasingly difficult to safely facilitate structured SD sessions between the committees. Despite these constraints, the process had by that point generated sufficient trust, capacity, and ownership among participants that they began to take initiative independently. Committee members continued engaging across conflict lines and carried forward peace initiatives on their own, demonstrating a high degree of resilience and commitment. The SD committee members described seeing each other as one big family that helps and takes care of one another — a profound shift for communities whose relationships have constantly been undermined by violence for generations, eventually leading to them almost exclusively interacting through violent means with each other. This transition from facilitated dialogue to locally led action under conditions of active conflict underscores the depth and lasting impact of the SD process up to that point.

Anchoring a formal peace agreement

Just before the SD process began, the Federal Government of Somalia facilitated a formal land demarcation agreement between elders from both communities to address ongoing tensions and prevent further violence. The SD process played a critical role in grounding this agreement at the community level: it provided a trusted space to disseminate its provisions, encourage open discussion, and build the broad-based understanding and ownership necessary for implementation.

Even amidst heightened tensions and violent outbreaks of conflict between government forces and non-state armed groups in the area, the SD committee members have continued to work within their respective communities, to share their knowledge, create spaces for dialogue and exchange and intervene in escalating conflict.

Sharing fields for grazing again

Until recently, the area between the communities were unsafe for inter-communal mobility. Years of hostility had eroded trust to the point where even essential practices like communal grazing became impossible, deepening economic hardship for pastoralist communities. When the SD committees were established, they deliberately chose to confront this issue, recognising that access to shared natural resources could serve as a powerful bridge to peace. Through sustained engagement, they introduced joint communication mechanisms and actively advocated for safe, coordinated access to grazing land. Gradually, what began as cautious cooperation evolved into something more transformative: communities started moving their livestock across previously contested areas, reviving traditional practices that had long been abandoned.

SD committee members emphasised that this shift has only been possible because of the trust built through sustained engagement and the recognition that environmental pressures affect both communities equally. By using the environment as a neutral entry point, the dialogue process has enabled practical cooperation that directly supports livelihoods while reinforcing peaceful coexistence. This intervention of the SD committees shows promise to grow once again into a system of mutual reliance, where both sides depend on shared natural resources for their livelihoods. What was once a source of division will hopefully become a foundation for interdependence, demonstrating how environmental cooperation can rebuild trust and reshape relationships.

Prevention of cycles of violence

Cycles of revenge killings have long followed a predictable and dangerous pattern: a single act of violence quickly escalates into broader communal conflict, driven by a deeply rooted sense of collective responsibility. Recently, when such an incident occurred, the situation carried all the hallmarks of escalation. Yet this time, the outcome was different. Members of the SD committees — particularly the elders from both communities — moved swiftly, engaging their counterparts in the affected rural areas to calm tensions and reframe the incident as an individual legal matter rather than a collective grievance, which would have called for both communities to get involved. At the same time, the youth mobilised through telecommunications, reaching out to peers across the villages to advocate for restraint and respect for both formal and traditional justice processes. Together, these coordinated efforts succeeded in containing the violence and preventing wider retaliation. For many community members, this marked a historic experience: a moment where dialogue, trust, and joint action interrupted the cycle of violence and escalation that had defined intercommunal relations for generations.

Re-opening of the market

Another positive development driven by the SD process, is the re-establishment of an inter-community market. Every Friday, a rural market between the communities is coming back to life, something that would have been unthinkable at the height of the conflict. Previously, insecurity and mistrust had all but shut down trade, cutting off a vital economic lifeline. Through the efforts of the SD committees and the gradual rebuilding of trust, the market has been successfully revived and now serves as a shared economic hub. Livestock, crops and goods are once again exchanged in a space that is considered safe by both communities. More than just a marketplace, it has become a visible symbol of what peace can deliver. As traders from different communities meet, interact and depend on one another, the benefits of stability become tangible, income flows, goods circulate and relationships strengthen. In this way, the market embodies a clear “peace dividend,” reinforcing the idea that cooperation is not only possible, but far more rewarding than conflict.

Lessons learned from the SD process

The experience from the SD process demonstrates that even in deeply divided contexts, where mistrust and conflict have persisted for decades, change is possible when communities are brought together around shared realities. In this case, environmental pressures, as drought, resource scarcity and livelihood challenges, served as a powerful connecting point, creating common ground where dialogue could begin. Through the SD process, this shared entry point was carefully nurtured over time (almost two years at the time of writing), allowing relationships to gradually rebuild, perspectives to shift and cooperation to emerge. What makes this approach particularly impactful is not only the outcomes achieved, but the process itself: iterative, inclusive and rooted in local ownership. By linking environmental peacebuilding with sustained, structured dialogue, the initiative has shown that addressing everyday survival challenges can open pathways to lasting peace — making coexistence both necessary and beneficial for all.

The trajectory of the SD process highlights both its transformative potential and its vulnerability. While communities have demonstrated remarkable ownership by continuing peace efforts even amid escalating conflict, sustaining and expanding these gains will require consistent engagement, adaptive support and reliable long-term funding. In a context marked by ongoing territorial instability and recurring cycles of violence, short-term interventions risk losing momentum. Continued investment is therefore critical to consolidate trust, strengthen locally led structures and ensure that the foundations built through the SD process can translate into durable peace over time.

Author: Nura Detweiler (Berghof Foundation)