By Sarli Sardou Nana
PRESIDENT Bola Tinubu has big dreams for Nigeria’s new Federal Ministry of Livestock Development. In a speech announcing the ministry, Tinubu shared his hope that it would “enable Nigeria to finally take advantage of livestock farming” and overcome “this adversity that has plagued us”.
The adversity he is alluding to is farmer-herder conflict: the violent disputes between farmers and pastoralists over land and land access that are estimated to have killed 2,600 people in 2021 alone.
Created last year, the Ministry of Livestock is tasked with mending relations between pastoralists and farmers, as well as with improving agricultural productivity, strengthening value chains, and identifying export opportunities.
It has already been busy: announcing plans to tighten regulations on animal imports; digitising grazing routes to better map and monitor livestock movements; and developing schemes to enhance Nigeria’s leather industry, which used to be a major source of export revenue. The ministry has also been carrying out “stakeholder engagement” as part of its focus on “peacebuilding, security, and social cohesion” between pastoralist and farming communities.
But there has also been opposition to the new ministry in certain quarters – opposition that exposes the simmering tensions that divide opinion in Nigeria over the future of pastoralism.
Shortly after the ministry was announced, some prominent politicians and ethno-religious activists were quick to criticise it. The general argument was that the ministry would favour pastoralists – typically seen as Muslim and northern – over the concerns of predominantly Christian and southern-based farmers.
In September, rumours that some legislators in the National Assembly were attempting to sabotage the ministry’s creation – by reportedly planning attacks on farms that would be attributed to pastoralists – led the Coalition of Pastoralist Associations in Nigeria, an umbrella organisation, to release a statement condemning “divisive strategies that aim to destabilise pastoralist communities”.
This opposition is particularly strong in Nigeria’s Middle Belt states. This densely populated region is, in general, opposed to pastoralist transhumance – known as open grazing – in which cattle travel and graze outside designated ranches, and where the clashes over land and access to fodder and water have been the most intense.
Benue State has been a particular hotspot, and has since banned open grazing. To enforce the law, Governor Hyacinth Alia even formed a new 10,000-strong security outfit encompassing the pre-existing Livestock Guards and Benue Community Volunteer Guards created by his predecessor.
But these enforcement measures have failed to stop either transhumance or the accompanying violence.
Middle Belt politicians and activists are also behind a Bill going through parliament that seeks to ban open grazing entirely across Nigeria’s 36 states. This Bill challenges the ethos of the ministry, and is an indication of just how contested and polarising the issue of pastoralism is – a problem by no means specific to Nigeria.
Resolving these disagreements is important. Pastoralists across Africa are vital for meeting national food needs. In a report released last year, the ministry’s implementation committee estimated that pastoralism and agro-pastoralists provide over 80% of the country’s meat and 90% of its milk, compared to just 10% from commercial ranches.
Yet their increasing vulnerability to issues from vigilantism to mobility restrictions threatens the long-term sustainability of this critical livelihood system and ancient way of life.
A way forward
There are a few things Nigeria’s new ministry could do to tackle the root causes of farmer-herder conflict.
Firstly, it should focus on supporting pastoralists’ land tenure security.
Unlike settled farmers and herders, pastoralists rely on informal, collective ways of sharing land and key resources. These systems are characterised by flexibility, community-driven management, and freedom of movement across wide landscapes.
If the ministry is serious about ending farmer-herder conflict, it needs to foster a new narrative to counter anti-herder bias.
Yet their lack of legal recognition means they are increasingly threatened by the conversion of grazing lands for other purposes, including farming, mining, and conservation projects.
The collapse of traditional conflict resolution mechanisms and a resulting increase in incidents that lead to tit-for-tat violence have further entrenched enmities and escalated issues beyond simple questions of land access.
Tanzania offers a compelling example of what can happen when land planning includes transhumance.
The Tanzanian government is supporting comprehensive land use planning, which awards pastoralists certificates to access and use shared grazing lands, securing grazing lands for livestock keepers, including pastoralists, and opening up government ranches to pastoralists – with very positive results. These secure rights for pastoralists have not only reduced – and in some places, eliminated – conflict; they are also contributing to more productive grazing lands and land restoration.
Nigeria’s grazing reserves, by contrast, haven’t been protected by state governments or provided with the necessary veterinary services.
Secondly, if the ministry is serious about ending farmer-herder conflict, it needs to foster a new narrative to counter anti-herder bias. Nigerian media coverage on farmer-herder conflicts tends to be alarmist, biased against pastoralists, inflammatory, and increasingly playing up an unfounded religious divide.
Misinformation on social media platforms is rife. FactCheckHub, the fact-checking arm of the International Centre for Investigative Reporting, has highlighted the depth of false information that serves to aggravate conflicts – with provocative X posts coming from as far afield as Russia.
In reality, the causes of farmer-herder conflicts are multifaceted and under-researched. Their roots are in everything from insecure land tenure to weak governance and the lack of effective policing.
Better enforcement of existing national legislation – which prohibits the dissemination of false information with the intention of inciting violence – would be a first step to countering these divisions.
Finally, the pastoralist sector needs a lot more investment: to support livestock health through better veterinary care; to offer extension services; to improve markets; and to set up holding stations that can provide feed and water along transhumance routes.
The Ministry of Livestock has huge potential to raise the profile of the sector, provide better targeted funding, and develop the policies and legislation that would enable pastoralism to continue alongside crop farming. Its success or failure will hold important lessons for other countries grappling with this critical issue.
–––––
The New Humanitarian puts quality, independent journalism at the service of the millions of people affected by humanitarian crises around the world. Find out more at www.thenewhumanitarian.org.
