9. Conclusion

In years past, the collection, coding, integration, and analysis of conflict data as done here, would have been exceedingly cost prohibitive to non-profits such as The Fund for Peace. However, due to advances in technology and effective collaboration among local, national, and international stakeholders, situational awareness at multiple levels of granularity is now possible, even in countries like Nigeria, emblematic of complexity. This relatively new ability to analyze trends at multiple levels of analysis simultaneously is critical for a better understanding of the conflict landscape. Sometimes it is necessary to peel back layers so as not to misread the big picture and sometimes the big picture is necessary to understand why a particular incident may have taken place. It is tempting, sometimes to think that the closer you get to the ground, the closer you get to the truth. But this premise is belied when a colleague is killed and there is no clear answer as to what extent the killing may have been triggered by ethnic, communal, political, criminal, and/or interpersonal factors. At the other extreme, an aggregation of data at the national level tells you very little about the intermediate conflict ecosystems and how they do or do not interrelate in a given time period. A bombing in Kaduna by Boko Haram might mean something very different by way of perpetrator, objective, and effective response, than a similar bombing in Maiduguri. Also, localized pastoral conflicts in the Middle Belt or communal violence in the Niger Delta may or may not be influenced by broader political and sectarian dynamics. As stakeholders, regardless of mandate, whether local, sub-national, or national, effective peace and security planning requires this multi-level analysis.