Of ranches, cattle colonies and misplaced priorities (2)

Aliyu Musa

Pastoralism is, arguably, one of Nigeria’s most under-tapped economically viable sectors. It contributes a third of the agricultural GDP and more than three percent of the national GDP. Even though it generates about US$6.8 billion annually, it falls far below the estimated US$20 billion it, normally, should generate. And this shortfall is due to incessant conflict and failure of successive governments to properly harness the potential of the sector.

The National Grazing Reserve Act of 1964 was introduced as a means of resolving and or preventing the increasingly daunting conflict between herders and farmers over grazing lands. It was meant to legally designate and protect areas specifically for grazing livestock and, in the process, encourage the sedentarisation of nomadic pastoralists. Sedentarisation or settlement of nomadic pastoralists has several benefits, one of which is general livestock development.

But the Act has now been overtaken by several events, which is why the key objectives have not been achieved. Conflicts between herders and farmers have continued to arise due to a number of reasons: the Act has not been able to legally protect demarcated areas from encroachment by crop farmers and expanding population; sedentary animal husbandry has failed to appeal to a greater number of the pastoralists; the pastoralists that have settled on the designated reserves were not previously nomadic.

Other problems that affected the success of the policy were the failure to properly compensate owners of lands taken over as part of the reserves, which often resulted in disputes; and, owing to the fact that the nomads have refused to settle down the livestock often wandered into farmlands, leading to conflict with farmers, etc.

In Nigeria, conflict between pastoralists and farmers is a massive problem that defies logic and solutions. The problem appears insurmountable because herders rear animals mainly through grazing and they (herders) are led by the cattle to wherever grazing land is available, making clashes over grazing land inevitable.

Technology has made life simpler and most tasks are achievable with ease. Pastoralism has moved on too and today, in most parts of the world, nomadic pastoralism is out of vogue. Sedentary animal husbandry, regardless of its lack of appeal to nomadic herders, still holds the key to the door out of this logjam. But this option would require a strong financial commitment to succeed. Besides, without proper sensitisation to draw attention to the benefits, it would be hard to sell the idea to the nomads, potential investors and host communities.

In the first part of this commentary last week I argued that the two policies the Federal and Benue State governments have proposed need to be seriously reassessed to know whether any of them has the capacity to transform the conflict. So, in my view, both proposals try to put the cart before the horse.

In the case of the anti-open grazing law, apart from the fact that it suggests vindictiveness, it does not take into consideration the cost implication of setting up ranches, which is the only option it leaves the herders with. It also does not factor in the nomads’ unwillingness to embrace sedentary pastoralism. But most importantly, it fails to see that the decision could be interpreted as a war declaration, since most of the nomads do not have the means of setting up ranches, even if they wanted to.

The FG’s cattle colonies proposal is vague and equally fails to do the needful. It does not take into account the fact that the communities in the states are to eventually host the colonies and unless there is an unambiguous willingness it could backfire, like the National Grazing Reserve Act. It does not realise that the nomads would also need to be educated and persuaded to accept the proposal.

So, biggest challenge now, for the FG especially, is how to deescalate the tension hovering over the country and put in place a machinery to create a sustainable peace and restore trust among the various parties in the conflict. This could serve as a base for its initiative, afterwards.

Modern cattle ranching techniques are gaining currency across the globe. And lessons could be learned from the success stories of countries where new practices have transformed old conflicts, built an enduring peace and led to livestock development.

Of Nigeria’s 36 states only Lagos is fully able to generate revenue internally and survive largely without subventions from the FG. Out of this crisis some of the currently crumbling states could benefit substantially. Morden cattle ranching or sedentary animal husbandry is practiced in many parts of East and South Africa. This has significantly reduced the incidences of clashes with crop farmers, helped the nomads settle down and boost the development of pastoralism.

In some countries like Zimbabwe, Uganda, South Africa, etc. commercial ranching and cattle banking are attracting an increasing acceptability, despite sceptics’ gloomy predictions.

Experts and financiers who set up such ranches or cattle farms or banks apply modern techniques to boost the quality of the cattle through cross-breeding, fattening and disease control. Cattler owners are, thus, relieved of the worries of grazing, preserving and multiplying the herds. They only need need to deposit them in the farms or banks and earn certain percentages over an agreed period of time.

By partnering with private investors, states in northern Nigeria that are willing to continue to host herdsmen could borrow from the initiatives in East and South Africa and modify to suit their local situations. They could invest substantially in modern techniques to boost the quality of the herds and increase the National herd. And because it is a win-win deal, they could earn revenue through beef and dairy products, for which they could control the prices and distribution channels.

While it may sound vindictive the states that refuse to host the herdsmen or be part of the project may have to pay more for beef and dairy products, in addition to losing out on revenue. This is why there is an urgent need for some states to take on this initiative, regardless of the likely challenges, and make as much as possible from the crisis. This is a priority we must get right.

(Concluded)

This piece has also been published in the Blueprint newspaper of Saturday, January 20, 2018.