Agriculture is the backbone of Africa’s economy. It provides livelihoods for over 70% of the rural population and contributes to national food security and economic development. For most rural households, farming is not just a source of income and sustenance. It also provides cultural identity and social stability. Over the past two decades, however, rural Africa has witnessed increasing levels of violent conflicts that undermine agricultural productivity, investment and long-term development. Farmers facing insecurity often abandon productive crops, reduce land use and invest less in their farms. There are serious consequences for food security. Conflict destroys lives and property. It also changes the decisions farmers make about investing in their land. We are agricultural and applied economists with expertise in rural development,sustainable food system and climate-smart agriculture. We’ve studied the impact of conflict on food systems in the global south.One of our studies examined how violent conflict influenced agricultural investment decisions among rural households in Nigeria. We combined nationally representative household data with detailed conflict records, to track how exposure to violence affects farming.The findings showed that violent conflict altered agricultural investment decisions. It made farmers less likely to cultivate major crops. The cultivation of yam, sweet potato, groundnut, cowpea, maize and cassava declined as conflict incidents increased. Sweet potato was the most affected, perhaps because it needs a lot of labour and a longer time to grow.When conflict disrupts farming through abandoned fields, lost livestock, or altered investment decisions, it undermines food availability and long-term agricultural development. Understanding these impacts is useful when designing ways to help farmers and sustain food systems in conflict-affected areas.The realityOur study used panel data from Nigeria’s Living Standards Measurement Study covering the periods 2012/2013, 2015/2016 and 2018/2019. The national study provides detailed household-level information. This covers demographic characteristics, agricultural production, crop choice, land allocation, input use, production costs and market participation. We combined the household coordinates with geocoded conflict data from the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED) to measure exposure to violent conflict. The ACLED database provides detailed information on battles, violence against civilians, remote violence, protests and riots. Our study focused on three indicators of violent conflict exposure: total number of conflict incidentsnumber of violent incidents affecting civilians (including Boko Haram-related violence)number of battles, including protests, riots and farmer–herder clashes. To capture local exposure to violence, we measured conflict incidents within a radius of 10km of each surveyed household in a given year. By linking spatial conflict data with household-level agricultural information across multiple survey waves, the study analysed how exposure to violent conflict influenced farmers’ production decisions, land allocation and agricultural outcomes over time.The findingsThe results indicate that insecurity discourages farmers from engaging in production activities that involve greater risk or long-term investment. Conflict exposure also affects land allocation decisions. The analysis showed a reduction in the total cultivated land area and a decline in the share of land allocated to key staple crops.This pattern suggests that farmers respond to insecurity by scaling down farming activities, avoiding distant plots, and concentrating on smaller or safer areas of land. Reducing the land cultivated may result in less food produced.We found that conflict led to less spending on agricultural production. Farmers invested less in inputs such as fertilizer, pesticides and hired labour. The effects varied across management types. Plots managed by men showed relatively stable investment levels. Production costs increased on plots managed by men and women. This could be due to reliance on external labour during periods of insecurity. The findings demonstrate that violent conflict affects crop choices, reduces land use and discourages agricultural investment.Disruptions also increase the cost of agricultural production and marketing, making farming less profitable. Government efforts to support agriculture, such as input subsidies and rural development programmes, don’t work so well in conflict zones. The adverse effects are more severe for households in highly conflict-prone areas. Disputes have long-term economic impacts.Recommendation and policy implicationsThe findings highlight the need for conflict-sensitive agricultural policies and targeted rural development interventions. First, strong rural security and community conflict resolution mechanisms are essential. Government and local authorities should monitor security in major agricultural zones and help communities to build peace.Policies should encourage farmers to plant climate-smart and low-risk crops that need fewer inputs and have shorter production cycles. This would make agricultural systems more resilient to conflict.Extension services should advise farmers on which crops to plant, improved seed varieties, and farming strategies suitable for insecure environments. Policymakers should invest in rural infrastructure and early-warning systems, including market access, transport networks and conflict monitoring systems.The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.