Journal of Global Initiatives: Policy, Pedagogy, Perspective
Volume 10
Number 2 Sustainable Livelihoods and Conflict
Article 7
March 2016
Some Dimensions of Farmers'-Pastoralists'
Conflicts in the Nigerian Savanna
Mayowa Fasona
University of Lagos, Nigeria, mfasona@unilag.edu.ng
Eniola Fabusoro
Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta, Nigeria, efabusoro@gmail.com
Comfort Sodiya
Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta, Nigeria, comfortibironke@yahoo.com
Vide Adedayo
University of Lagos, Nigeria, vide3q@yahoo.com
Felix Olorunfemi
Nigerian Institute of Social and Economic Research, felixba2000@yahoo.com
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/jgi
See next page for additional authors
Part of the African History Commons, African Studies Commons, Agricultural and Resource
Economics Commons, Growth and Development Commons, Peace and Conflict Studies Commons,
and the Political Economy Commons
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Recommended Citation
Fasona, Mayowa; Fabusoro, Eniola; Sodiya, Comfort; Adedayo, Vide; Olorunfemi, Felix; Elias, Peter Omu; Oyedepo, John; and
Oloukoi, Grace (2016) "Some Dimensions of Farmers'-Pastoralists' Conflicts in the Nigerian Savanna," Journal of Global Initiatives:
Policy, Pedagogy, Perspective: Vol. 10 : No. 2 , Article 7.
Available at: https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/jgi/vol10/iss2/7
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@Kennesaw State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of
Global Initiatives: Policy, Pedagogy, Perspective by an authorized editor of DigitalCommons@Kennesaw State University. For more information,
please contact digitalcommons@kennesaw.edu.
Some Dimensions of Farmers'-Pastoralists' Conflicts in the Nigerian
Savanna
Authors
Mayowa Fasona, Eniola Fabusoro, Comfort Sodiya, Vide Adedayo, Felix Olorunfemi, Peter Omu Elias, John
Oyedepo, and Grace Oloukoi
This article is available in Journal of Global Initiatives: Policy, Pedagogy, Perspective: https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/jgi/
vol10/iss2/7
Mayowa Fasona, Eniola Fabusoro, Comfort Sodiya, Vide Adedayo, Felix Olorunfemi,
Peter Elias, John Oyedepo, and Grace Oloukoi
Journal of Global Initiatives
Vol. 10, No. 2, 2016, pp. 87-108
Some Dimensions of Farmers’-Pastoralists’
Conflicts in the Nigerian Savanna
Mayowa Fasona,1 Eniola Fabusoro,2 Comfort Sodiya,3
Vide Adedayo,4 Felix Olorunfemi,5 Peter Elias,6
John Oyedepo,7 and Grace Oloukoi8
Abstract
The savanna ecosystem covers about 48.5% of Nigeria’s land area. It is a national
common for intensive cropping and extensive grazing. Fierce competition for land
and water resources among the crop farmers and pastoralists is a common feature.
This article shares insights from two separate, but linked, studies conducted in the
Nigerian savanna on the livelihood and food security of the local peasant farming
communities and the vulnerability of the settled Fulani agro-pastoralists’
livelihoods. Household interviews, focus group discussions, and key informant
interviews were employed among both the farming and agro-pastoralist
communities. 191 respondents in 11 local farming communities and 201
households in 40 Fulani sub-communities (pastoral family steads locally referred
to as “gaa”) were sampled in Ogun, Oyo, and Kwara States. Evidence from the
studies suggests that poor resource governance arrangment is a key factor of
1
Department of Geography, University of Lagos, Nigeria
Department of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, Federal University of
Agriculture, Abeokuta, Nigeria
3 Department of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, Federal University of
Agriculture, Abeokuta, Nigeria
4 Department of Geography, University of Lagos, Nigeria.
5 Nigerian Institute of Social and Economic Research, Ibadan, Nigeria
6 Department of Geography, University of Lagos, Nigeria.
7
Institute of Food Security, Environmental Resources, and Agricultural Research, Federal
University of Agriculture, Abeokuta, Nigeria.
8
Lead City University, Ibadan, Nigeria.
2
88 Journal of Global Initiatives
farmer-pastoralist conflict. Both the farmers and pastoralists are sufficiently aware
of the threat of clashes to human insecurity in the region. Some of the communities
are taking steps to build confidence and improve relationships with the agropastoralist communities. On the other hand, the Fulanis also have conflict
resolution measures and collective actions to reach out to their host farming
communities. The role of the government has not been very encourging. More
concrete and proactive measures are required to improve resource governance in
order to de-escalate the current levels of resource conflicts in the savanna.
Introduction
Access to natural resources is essential for livelihood production in rural areas of
Africa. The most vulnerable tend to be people with poor access to natural resources
upon which to build their livelihood strategies (Pasteur, 2011). Sustainable
management of natural resources ensures that livelihoods are secure and sustainable
in the long term. Poor subsistence farmers and pastoralists depend on the
availability of usable land and pasture for their livelihoods. Sustained natural
resources ensure sustainable livelihoods for these actors (Rennie & Singh, 1996).
The nature of livelihoods in Africa is still poorly understood. Many aspects of rural
livelihoods continue to be at conflicts with each other and the natural ecosystem.
The question of ownership and right of access to natural resources may become
more critical in densely settled rural landscapes where livelihoods and food security
are substantially tied to these resources. Existing resource governance arrangements
and frameworks will be critical to effective management of natural resources to
prevent worsening resource conflicts and human insecurity.
The millennium development goals have committed the world’s nations to
improving food security, eradicating extreme poverty, and reducing environmental
degradation. At the same time there is an increasing need to address multiple other
social and environmental concerns including the impacts of conflicts related to
natural resources on food security and rural poverty (Government Office of Science,
2011). Renewable natural resources play an essential role in enhancing food
security by providing the ecosystem services that enable continued production or
utilization of food and water (Millennium Ecosystems Assessment, 2005; Munang,
Thiaw, & Rivington, 2011). The natural resources governance arrangement and
initiatives at the local levels, where resource conflicts often play out, are important
to determining how the local population perceives these resources and how much
they appreciate the goods and services from the ecosystems. Recognition and
empowerment of communities as stewards of ecosystem services are essential to
strengthening their capacity to manage ecosystems sustainably for human wellbeing (Fabricus & Koch, 2004; Folke, Carpenter, Elmqvist, Gunderson, & Holling,
2002).
Resource conflict, a major output of poor resource governance, is a formidable
threat to both natural resources and human security. It is also detrimental to rural
livelihoods, food security, and social co-existence (Adisa & Adekunle, 2010;
Daramola, 2005; Fasona & Omojola, 2005). Unhealthy competition for finite
environmental resources, lack of management, divergent attitudes and beliefs, as
Fasona et al.
89
well as poor institutions trigger and exacerbate natural resource conflicts
(Hellström, 2001). Bob and Bronkhorst (2010) posit that resource scarcity, whether
perceived or actual, is a crucial component of environmental conflicts. Resource
conflict problems are is likely to be aggravated when no institution appears to be in
control, the extant regulations governing resource access and use are not enforced,
or strategies for sustainable natural resources management are not translated into
actions. This appears to be the challenge in the Nigerian savanna.
The savanna ecosystem is a national common which covers about 450,000km2
(or 48.5%) of Nigeria’s land area (Nigeria National Biodiversity Conservation and
Action Plan, 2004) stretching from about latitude 7 045’ North to 140 North. It
comprises the Sahel, Sudan, Guinea, and Derived (or Wooded) savannas. The Sahel
savanna is found mainly in the northeast and along the northern border with the
Niger Republic. In addition to grasses, shrub species (Combretum spp.), and acacias
predominate. Forest cover rarely exceeds 10% except along seasonal watercourses.
The Sudan savanna contains similar species to the Sahel zone with a greater
frequency of Acacia albida, Tamarindusindica, and Schelocaryabirrea, and forest
cover of up to 20% of the land area. The Guinea savanna is found in the middle belt
of Nigeria, and is typified by open woodland with tall grasses and fire-resistant
trees. African mahogany at one time was an indicative species of this zone. Tree
cover varies between 15 to 25% in undisturbed areas. The Derived savanna is found
further south and is a broadband that borders the remaining forest zone of the south.
It is continuing to spread south as more forest land is degraded. Tree cover here is
as much as 30% (Nigeria National Biodiversity Conservation and Action Plan,
2004). The Nigerian savanna generally typifies a densely settled zone (except in a
few places around the Guinea savanna) where different social groups compete for
access to finite natural resources that are constrained by the vagaries in the local
climate across space and seasons (Fasona, Tadross, Abiodun, & Omojola, 2011).
The two most visible actors are the sedentary peasant farmers and the settled and
migrant pastoralists constantly in search of pasture, forage, and water for their
herds.
Agricultural and pastoral lands are common pool resources in the Nigerian
savanna. Although by virtue of the land use act all lands are vested in the hands of
the government, in reality every community appears to be in charge of the lands in
their domain. The land and the associated resources provide the basic means of
livelihood to members of these communities. Sedentary small-holder rainfed
cultivation is the major livelihood activities in the Derived, Guinea, and Sudan
savanna. Farming activities are tied to seasons. Thus the rainy season (April to
September) also doubles as the busy period for crop farmers. The dry season
(October to March) is generally a low farming activity period except in limited
places where the farmers have access to water for irrigation. On the other hand, the
agro-pastoralists are constantly on the move in search of forage and pasture for
herds. They hardly request any permission to move or stay around any community,
and are thus regarded as invaders by the host communities. This perception creates
a priori divide between them and the host communities. In the absence of dedicated
grazing reserves, the agro-pastoralists are forced to move from place to place and
90 Journal of Global Initiatives
any location where the grasses and herbs are green, including the host communities’
farms, is good enough for grazing. The natural result is constant tension and conflict
between the herders and crop farmers.
Environmental conflict is likely to be worse where boundaries are not clear and
there are competing claims over resources. In this article we discuss some of the
peculiarities of farmer-pastoralist conflicts in the savanna, the existing resource
governance arrangement, the vulnerabilty of both the farmers and agro-pastoralists,
the likely role of climate change, and efforts from both the farming and pastoral
communities to improve inter-relationships, resolve conflicts, and manage crisis.
We argue that the poor resource governace arrangement is an impetus to resource
conflicts in the Nigeria savanna.
Conceptual Clarifications
The conceptual foundation of this article rests on the value and importance of
natural goods and services as they connect with human social economic and
developmental activities, and the importance and implication of property rights and
access to common pool resources. Nature has been the patrimony of natural
resources and the source of goods and services and space in which society develops.
When the natural characteristics of ecosystem structure and function are of interest
in the development of human society, they are classified as natural goods and
services (Gosselink, Odum, & Pope, 1973). Natural goods are tangibles derived
from a natural resource to directly fulfill human livelihood. Land is a natural
resource that supports cultivated crops for livelihood and food provision. It also
supports the growth of pasture and forage for pastoral animals. On the other hand,
natural services are derived from the natural characteristics of ecosystem structure
and function and may include the flow of energy and materials, nutrient storage,
distribution and cycling, provision of wildlife habitat, germplasm storage and
evolution, biomass production, and flood control (Hufschmidt, James, Meister,
Bower, & Dixon, 1983). In essence, these are intangibles that support the health of
the natural resource in question and its continued provision of the direct or tangible
goods. Unsustainable exploitation of natural resources may produce more natural
goods in the short run, but will ultimately lead to declining services and
deteriorating health of the resources and drastic reduction in the volume of natural
goods produced in the long run.
A quality environment provides the necessary goods and services to satisfy life
quality needs and mitigates the severity of a hazard. The concept of natural goods
and services as stated by Lugo and Brinson (1979) also links the concept of natural
resources with environmental and life quality and economic goods and services.
Economic goods and services are the results of labor and the expenditure of capital
to refine and convert natural resources to useful products, and to design and provide
activities of public utility such as health, security, communication, and government
services (Ehrenfeld, 1976). The natural goods and services may control ecosystem
functioning. They are, therefore, important to a sustainable flow of economic goods
or services. The benefit from the goods and services must flow and be enjoyed
Fasona et al.
91
across the different society strata or by all the actors that depend on the resource in
one way or another. Conflicts often arise when the activity of a party or an actor in
the common pool resource use theater severely compromises the quality or quantity
of the common resource to the extent that the other actors cannot fulfil their
livelihood or welfare aspiration. A situation where the part of a common pool
resource being enjoyed by an actor is destroyed or compromised by another actor
in the way to fulfilling its own livelihood aspirations is a recipe for human
insecurity.
The sustainability of natural goods and services especially with regards to a
common depend to a large extent on the ownership and access to common pool
resources. This is where the role of a regulator (the government) in the resource
governance becomes important. Grafton, Adadmowicz, Dupont, Nelson, Hill, and
Renzetti (2004) in their book, Economics of the Environment and Natural
Resources, posit that a property right exists over an asset whenever a recognizable
entity is able to exclude, at least partially, others from either using it or enjoying a
flow of benefits of its use. Property rights can be individual rights and can also be
shared between individuals and groups. For example, despite the land use decree
placing all lands in the hand of the government, land is communally controlled or
held in common by the local communities in the savanna.
Who holds property rights over assets, especially natural resources and the
environment, and the nature of these rights has very important implications in terms
of environmental sustainability and outcomes. Public goods, unlike private goods,
are inherently non rival in use, in other words, their use is mutually in-exclusive.
This is particularly graphic in the savanna with very complex land-use practices. A
piece of land that is a grazing area in the dry season may become a farmland in the
wet season. Land and pasture, like many other environmental assets in the Nigerian
savanna, are neither pure public goods nor private goods, but common pool
resources where exclusion is difficult (but not totally impossible if the resource
governance framework are well implemented), and their use is rivalrous. Although
there is no exclusivity, one person’s use of the resource reduces the ability of the
other to either use or enjoy it. As mentioned earlier, this is one of the roots of violent
resource conflicts in the savanna. Due to poor land management and lack of land
administration procedures, property rights which come in the form of private rights
for individual lands, community rights, state rights, or a mix of these right regimes
are completely absent in the vast area of the Nigerian savanna. The result is a
tragedy of the common where individual users consider only their private costs and
not the costs their actions impose on other resource users. Thus, what results is
pareto efficiency where it is not possible to make someone better off without
making someone else worse off. In a densely settled agrarian rural landscape,
violent conflicts and human insecurity are the natural outcome of such exclusivity.
92 Journal of Global Initiatives
Materials and Methods
The Study Area
The study area is roughly defined by latitude 7 0 01’ and 80 14’ and longitude 20 45’
and 40 15’ covering principally the Derived (Wooded) savanna that is dominated by
a mixture of forest and woodland interspersed with tall grasses and fire-resistant
trees. It covers Ogun, Oyo, and Kwara States in southwest to west-central Nigeria
(Figure 1). The study area is characterized by a sub-humid Koppen’s Aw climate,
an equatorial savanna where minimum precipitation is less than 60mm in the dry
season (Kottek, Grieser, Beck, Rudolf, & Ru, 2006) and the average annual rainfall
is about 1000mm. Rainfall is the limiting factor of crop cultivation and dictates the
rhythm of life (Fasona, Tadross, Abiodun, & Omojola, 2013; Omotosho &
Abiodun, 2007). The tree cover is as much as 30%, but the zone continues to expand
into the southern rainforest zone as more forestland is degraded (Bucini & Lambin,
2002; Hoffmann & Jackson, 2000).
Population density is relatively high and survival for large rural communities
depends on small-holder rain-fed agriculture. The area is inhabited mainly by the
Yorubas, who are traditionally sedentary agriculturalists and traders. The zone is
very suitable for crop cultivaion and is often referred to as the food basket of the
nation. It is also suitable for pastoral production, except for the limitation imposed
by customary property regimes on land use. The rich pasture undergrowth is a target
for extensive grazing by agro-pastoralists. Because the region is more humid than
the northern sahelian traditional home of the Fulani agro-pastoralists, a large
population of the agro-pastorlists have found the region to be a “home away from
home” and some of these have settled in the region for over 50 years (Fabusoro,
2006). The circuit movement of the “settled” agro-pastoralists coupled with the
“invasion” of the region by the purely nomadic Bororos from the Sahel and upper
Sudan zones around the months of September-October set the tone for resource
conflicts. Pareto efficiency sets in when the herds of the Fulanis destroy the
farmlands of the local sedentary crop cultivators. In essence, attempts to make the
Fulanis better off also make the local farmers worse off which leads to conflicts.
Data Collection
The methodology consists of content review and evaluation of policy documents
and participatory rural appraisal that include household interviews, focus group
discussions (FGD), key informant interviews (KII), and engagement with officials
of local councils and state governments. In addition, climate data (rainfall and
temperature) from 1982 and 2010 were sourced and analyzed for trends in the study
area.
Fasona et al.
Figure 1: The Study Area in the Derived Savanna of Western
Nigeria.
93
94 Journal of Global Initiatives
Review of Policy Documents
The policy documents of the Federal Government of Nigeria on natural resources
related areas including agriculture, forestry, environment, and energy were
reviewed. The documents were analyzed with the view to establishing the policy
objectives, strategies, and implementation framework with regards to natural
resource governance and resource management and its impacts on rural livelihoods
and resource conflicts, among others.
Household Survey
For the local communities, 191 households across 11 communities in Oyo and
Kwara states participated in the survey conducted from February 5-9, 2012. The
settlements include Yaaru, Idofian, and Agbonda (in Kwara state), and Orile-Igbon,
Sepeteri, Iganna, Igboho, Dogo, Ipapo, Ikoyi Ile, and Baasi (in Oyo state). These
communities were selected based on certain criteria including being a rural or semiurban (based on the assumption that the natural resource capital is more important
to livelihood and food security in rural and semi-urban areas than urban area) and
not far away from a forest and woodlands (this makes it easy to connect livelihood
to forest and woodlands). Actual household heads that participated in the interviews
were selected based on simple random sampling around the communities. For the
settled Fulani pastoralists’ communities, four settled Fulani communities were
selected. These were Alabata and Eggua (in Ogun State) and Irawo and Idode (in
Oyo State). In these communities interviews were conducted with 201 households
in 40 sub-communities (pastoral family steads locally referred to as “gaa”). The
communities were selected based on a concentration of Fulani agro-pastoralists,
size of the community, and years of settlement at the present location (Fabusoro,
2009). Due to the nature of the agro-pastoralits, the actual respondents were selected
based on availability and willingness to cooperate with the research team.
Focus Group Discussions, Key Informant Interviews, and Government
Officers’ Engagement
In the local farming communities, FGD were conducted in five communities—
Sepeteri, Igboho, Ipapo, Orile Igbon, and Baasi. Four traditional rulers were
engaged in Iganna, Ikoyi Ile, Agbonda, and Yaaru. Local Government officers in
charge of the environment and natural resources were engaged across nine LGAs
(Atisbo, Oriire, Itesiwaju, Olorunsogo, Orelope, Iwajowa, Saki East, Ifelodun, and
Irepodun) in Oyo and Kwara States. The key issue for the FGD and KII was to elicit
information on resource governance and the role being played by different actors
(communities, tiers of government, and other stakeholders) in natural resources
management and resource conflict resolution and management. For the settled agropastoralists, focus group discussions were conducted in the four pastoralists’
communities—Alabata, Eggua, Irawo, and Idode. Some of the issues raised during
Fasona et al.
95
the FGD included land accessibility, and conflicts and collective action for conflict
resolution.
Climate Data
Rainfall and maximum temperature data from 1982 and 2010 were collected from
the Nigerian Meteorological Agency (NIMET) from stations including Abeokuta,
Ibadan, Iseyin, Shaki, Oshogbo, and Ilorin. The data was analyzed for climate trends
and both spatial and temporal anomalies.
Data Analysis
The questionnaire for households and LGAs were coded and analyzed within the
statistical package for social statistics (SPSS) software. Both descriptive and
inferential statistics were employed to analyze the relationships between the
different variables. The FGD and KII interviews were transcribed from audio and
video. Qualitative information on key variables, issues, and perspectives were
derived from the interviews.
Results
Natural Resource Governance in Nigeria
The governance or resource management regime in place has substantial influence
on ownership or property right, access, use, and management of natural resources.
As mentioned earlier, the Nigerian savanna is a common pool resources where
nobody or no institution appears to be in charge. The Nigerian land use act vested
all lands in Nigeria in the hands of the government. While lands in urban areas are
vested in the hands of the state governor, all rural lands are vested with the local
government. But in reality, individual communities take charge of the area
considered to be their own community land and the traditional leader (in
consultation with his chiefs) is informally vested with the right to allocate land to
people from outside the community. Despite this, the government still has the
prerogative to acquire land anywhere and in any community by overriding public
goods. Table 1 shows the delineation of roles and responsibilities between the
federal, state, and local governments and the private sector in the Nigerian policy
on agriculture.
Clearly, there is very little on the use of common pool resources by different
actors and stakeholders. Thus, there is no formal statement on the expected
relationship between crop farmers and agro-pastoralists where the two groups have
to use common or shared resources. The communities who are the primary
custodian of the natural resources were totally excluded. The local government is
the third tier of government in Nigeria and the closest to the local people. However,
important responsibilities such as ensuring access to land, promotion of the
production of inputs for crops, livestock, fish, and forestry, and grazing reserve
96 Journal of Global Initiatives
development, and creation of water access for livestock are vested with the state
government. The state government is far from the grassroots and far from the theater
of struggle for common pool resources at the local levels. The LGAs that are
supposed to respond to such challenge has neither the legal backing nor the
resources to prosecute such a challenge. They are poorly funded and with
inadequate human and technical capacities.
Responses from LGA officials suggest that free range grazing by nomadic
pastoralists remain a formidable threat to human security and is a common feature
in all the communities. About 90% of the LGAs agree that clashes between the
agro-pastoralists and sedentary crop farmers do occur regularly. Several community
leaders and key informants were worried that conflict between farmers and agropastoralists has become endemic. Information also showed that many cases of cattle
invasion of farmland leading to clashes have been reported at the LGAs and the
LGAs attributed lack of grazing area for about 62.5% of the cases and deliberate
destruction of farmlands by the herders at 25%. Almost all the LGAs believed that
they presently lack the human capacity to meet the challenges of natural resources
management in their domain and 55.6% categorically admitted that their current
strategies for managing natural resources and resource conflicts were ineffective.
Many of the LGAs have no personnel with direct responsibility for forest and
ecosystems management or conflict management capabilities.
Responses from the Local Farming Communities
Resource conflicts between the settled and nomadic agro-pastoralists and the local
crop farmers are a common feature in all the communities. Although funding was
considered the most important problem to the households, many traditional rulers
and key informants are worried about the conflict between the communities and the
agro-pastoralists that has become endemic and a formidable source of human
insecurity in the savanna. Apart from farmland invasion and destruction by herds,
there are reports of nomadic agro-pastoralists setting the range on fire to enhance
early forage undergrowth. This kind of uncontrolled fire often goes out of control
to destroy small-holder cashew, mango, and citrus plantations owned by people in
the host communities. The results are clashes (which are sometimes very violent
and fatal) between the herders and the farmers. Reprisal attacks are also very
common, with cattle rustlers taking advantage of the situation, thus aggravating the
crisis situation. The comments in Box 1 capture the feelings and frustrations of
some community leaders with regards to this issue.
Fasona et al.
Table 1: Roles and Responsibilities of Governments and the
Private Sector in Sustainable Agriculture
Government/
Sector
Federal
Roles and Responsibilities
State
Provision of a virile and effective extension service
Promotion of the production of inputs for crops, livestock, fish,
and forestry
Ensuring access to land
Development and management of irrigation facilities and
dams
Grazing reserve development and creation of water access for
livestock
Training and manpower development
Promotion of appropriate institutions for administering credit
to smallholder farmers
Investment in rural infrastructure
Ownership, management, and control of forest estates
Local
Provision of effective extension service
Mobilization of farmers through cooperative organizations,
local institutions, and communities
Provision of land for new entrants into farming
Private
Investment in all aspects of upstream and downstream
agricultural enterprises and agribusinesses
Agricultural input supply and distribution
Production of commercial seeds, seedlings, brood stock, and
fingerlings under government certification and quality control
Provision of a general policy framework
Rural infrastructure development
Development of appropriate technology
Coordination of agricultural data and information management
systems
Making periodic inventory of land resources and control of
land-use and land degradation in collaboration with state and
local
Source: Federal Republic of Nigeria (2001)
97
98 Journal of Global Initiatives
Box 1: Stories of Struggle with Nomadic Herders in the Savanna
Community Leader in Baasi:
Whenever cattle destroys our farms and we go to the police to report the Fulanis,
they [the police] will tell us they can’t handle them. The Fulanis used to destroy
our crops a lot, if government can help us in this area, it will be better.
Focus Group in Ipapo:
They [Fulani herders] are richer than us, when they destroy our crops and we go
to police station, nothing will be done. Sometimes they offer compensation that
are so ridiculous that you will have to leave the place in anger.
Focus Group in Orile-Igbon:
When cattle destroy your farm and you report them [Fulani herders] to the police
nothing will be done. These people are richer than us. Even the value of one cow
is more than what a farmer can make from his farm in a whole year.
The Traditional Ruler of Yaaru:
They perpetuate their act at night. They usually set their cattle free to feed on
our farmlands thereby causing destruction of crops . . . It is a matter of concern
to us in this community because these farmers sometimes borrow money from
government and the activities of the herders usually result in debts. The Kwara
State government has promised to get us together to discuss the matter but they
[herders] will not respond.
Community Leader in Sepeteri:
It is impossible for farmers to be sleeping in their farm in order to secure their
farm produce from these people [nomadic herders]. This problem is not new to
us, it has been there for ages. Before now when these people bring their cattle to
feed in the bush, the farmer will stay with them so that they will not destroy the
crops that are planted. But now, they have devised a method whereby they feed
their cattle at night when the farmer will not be around to oversee their activities.
Some of these herders will set their cattle on farmlands to eat the crops. In fact
some will go the extra mile of destroying the storages of farmers and eat their
harvested farm produce. This is the problem we are facing here.
Responses from the Agro-Pastoralists’ Communities
The Fulani agro-pastoralists are by nature migrants and they are basically of two
stocks—the settled agro-pastoralists and the purely nomadic pastoralists. The
settled agro-pastoralists migrated into the study area and then “settled” in a location.
The word “settled” here implies that while they roam or move their herds about an
area that may be more than 2500km2 (or 50kmx50km) depending on the seasons,
they do return to their base where they live in sub-communities and isolated steads
(“gaa”). Some of these settled pastoralists have stayed in the same place for a long
period, occasionally migrate out of the area either due to dwindling resources or
outbreak of disease and may return some times (may be years) later to the same
area, though not necessarily to the same spot. They often have good communication
and relationships with their host communities and sometimes inter-marry with
them. However, because they roam their herds sometimes far away from their home
Fasona et al.
99
stead and often distribute them among their young children, they often get involved
in clashes resulting from invasion and destruction of farmlands by their herds.
The second stock is the purely nomadic pastoralists (referred to as Bororo).
According to interviews with the settled pastoralists, the Bororos (which are often
feared by even the settled pastoralists) migrate into the southern savannas from the
Sahel and northern Sudan zones of the savanna. They often arrive with millions of
cattle from late September to early October. They are very isolated and have little
or no communication with the settled pastoralists and the local communities that
are supposed to be their host. Although the “settled” pastoralists are also involved
in clashes resulting from farmland destruction by herds, they are of the opinion that
the Bororos are the major causes of conflicts and human insecurity in the savanna
through massive destruction of croplands during herd movement.
Land Accessibility
The result of the study conducted among the settled agro-pastoralists shows that
they have access to land and the most common land right owned is by rent (46.8%),
by gift (32.8%), and outright purchase (11.9%). The land referred to here is not
grazing land, but the land where they erect their stead and also do some
supplementary crop cultivation.
Conflicts
Of the respondents, 51.7% reported conflicts, with Eggua (86%) and Irawo (73%)
being the major hotspots of conflicts. This is not to say that conflicts do not occur
in other areas but they are less frequent. These conflicts were reported to have
occurred at least once in each study location with Eggua accounting for conflict
occurring in their area five times in the last 10 years. The conflicts were attributed
to destruction of croplands during cattle movement (87.5%) and cattle grazing in
host communities’ farmland (70.13%). Other causes included encroachment on the
Fulani farmland, land tussle, and exploitation by host community (Table 2). This
suggests that farm destruction and land accessibility are the main causes of
conflicts.
Table 2: Causes of Conflicts
Causes of Conflicts (n=104)
Land matter
Encroachment into our farm
Cattle grazing in community land
Exploitation by host community
Cattle destroy farm produce during movement
Frequency
19
30
73
13
91
%
18.3
28.8
70.1
12.5
87.5
Rank
4th
3rd
2nd
5th
1st
The focus group discussions show that many of the conflicts occur during the
transition from the wet to dry season (typically late September to November) when
100 Journal of Global Initiatives
the nomadic pastoralists (Bororos) tend to migrate to the area for pasture and water.
Loss/destruction of farm produce (91.3%) and seizure of cattle (22.1%) are the
major consequences of the conflicts. Others include loss of human lives, loss of
animals, loss of farmlands, and in some instances destruction of property and forced
relocations.
The Climate Dimension
The relationship between climate change and conflict is an indirect one. Prolonged
drying constrains the local farmers that depend on rainfed cultivation. It also
reduced pasture, forage, and water for agro-pastoralists. For the agro-pastoralists,
prolonged drying also means increased grazing distance. All these increase the
chances of occurrence of violent conflicts. According to field sources,
physiologically, both increases in rainfall and temperature are good for the health
of the Fulani herds. But in terms of availability of pasture and water for herds, rising
rainfall that is fairly distributed across the seasons is preferred. Increased warming,
on the other hand, means less water for both pasture growth and animal watering.
Rising temperature means a significant proportion of the water from rainfall is
equally lost to evapotranspiration.
The trend analysis of rainfall suggests that the mean monthly rainfall has been
increasing by about 6.5mm/month/decade from 1982 to 2010 (See Figure 2).
Further analysis suggests that while rainfall across seasons in the decade 1980s
was generally below the long term seasonal average, the decade 1990s rainfall
across seasons roughly equaled the seasonal average and the decades 2000s
experienced a seasonal rainfall that was above the long term average. The increase
in rainfall observed from the decades 1980 to 2000s is consistent with results of
earlier studies conducted in the savanna region of Nigeria (Anyamba & Tucker,
2005; Chima, Ijioma, Nwagbara, & Nwaugo, 2011; Fasona & Omojola, 2005).
However, the pattern of rainfall and temperature appears to be going in the
same general direction. The temperature has been rising at about
0.4oC/month/decade (Figure 3). The rising temperature trend is consistent with the
general global pattern of warming (IPCC, 2007) and the rising temperature for
Nigeria in particular (Federal Government of Nigeria, 2003). Figure 4 shows the
pattern for standardized anomalies of rainfall and temperature from 1982 to 2010.
Deductions from Figure 4 suggest that for most of the years up to 2001 both average
rainfall and temperature were below normal by between 1∂ and 2∂ in some cases.
But rainfall in about the years 2002 to 2010 showed strong recovery. This is also
accompanied by a very strong warming by as much as between 1∂ to 2.5∂ above
normal in some cases. This climate signal, though consistent with other studies
carried out in the savanna, presents an interesting scenario especially as it affects
farmer and pastoral livelihoods and conflicts over resources.
Ordinarily, it can be assumed that the livelihoods of both the crop farmers and
agro-pastoralists should fare better in the decades 2000s than in the 1980s and 1990s
when rainfall was low with less pasture and water was presumably scarce. But the
strong temperature profile that accompanied the rainfall recovery of the decades
Fasona et al.
101
2000s presents another dimension. There is a chance that the additional water
needed (for both crop and pasture growth and animal watering) created by higher
temperatures may not be met by the increase in rainfall.
Figure 2: Trend of Mean Monthly Rainfall in the Derived
Savanna, 1982-2010
Figure 3: Trend in Mean Monthly Maximum Temperature for
Derived Savanna, 1982-2010
102 Journal of Global Initiatives
Figure 4: Pattern of Rainfall and Temperature Anomalies in the
Derived Savanna, 1982-2010
Figure 5: Standardized Seasonal Rainfall Anomalies for the
Decades 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s
Fasona et al.
103
Thus, increased rainfall accompanied by increased temperature may neither
result in cooling nor have any substantial positive effect on the growth of forests
and woodlands. But it may aid the short-term growth of grasses and shrubs and
forages which is good for herds. Hence the vulnerability of the Fulani pastoralists
and their herds to climate change will depend significantly on the seasonal
fluctuations in rainfall (i.e., how dry is the dry season and how wet is the wet season)
which affects the growth of pasture and availability of water for animals and by
extension, the grazing distance.
Figure 5 shows the standardized seasonal rainfall anomalies. The pattern
suggests that in recent times (in decade 2000s), the dry season represented by DJF
(December-January-February) is getting drier and the wet season (March to
November) is getting wetter. This is unlike in the decades 1980s and 1990s when
there was a general decline in rainfall in the wet season and some increase in the
dry season. This suggests that the rainfall is not fairly distributed across the seasons.
The implication of this is a possible increase in conflicts occasioned by reduced
access to water and grazing lands in the dry season. Focus group discussions and
key informant interviews conducted among the Fulani pastoralists and local farmers
have confirmed that the frequency of conflicts in the study area in recent time
increased dramatically during the dry season compared to the wet season.
Conflict Resolution
Responses from the Local Governments
The LGA officials suggest two major issues critical to resolving the perennial crises.
These are creating and equipping dedicated grazing reserves for the agropastoralists and government intervention by constitutional enactment or policy
directives spelling out the conditions for co-existence between the agro-pastoralists
and host communities. While the first was part of the policy thrusts on agriculture
mentioned earlier, there was no reference to the second in the policy statements.
Other suggestions put forward include periodic training and enlightenment
campaigns among the agro-pastoralists that highlight the need to:
Respect the custom and traditions of local host communities;
Entrust animals into hands of mature adults and prevent their children
from moving cattle around;
Cage herd animals while resting; and
Avoid grazing on community farmland.
The local communities should be educated on the need to accommodate the
herders and be friendly with them and report cases of destruction of farmlands to
the appropriate authorities or the police. Farmers should not kill cattle belonging to
the herders and should stay away from designated grazing zones.
The LGAs, despite being the closest arm of government to the theater of
conflicts, generally lack the legal, technical, and human capacity to intervene and
104 Journal of Global Initiatives
solve the problem. They can neither create grazing reserves nor designate grazing
routes. This makes the situation more precarious.
Conflict Resolution and Management Initiatives by the Local
Communities
Conflicts between farmers and nomadic agro-pastoralists pose great danger to
human insecurity in the host communities. Strategies to build confidence between
the two groups are critical for peace and conflict resolution. Some of these
communities are evolving innovative approaches to resolving conflict with agropastoralists. For example, in Sepeteri and Ikoyi-Ile communities, conflicts with
herders are resolved through dialogue as narrated in Box 2 by the community
leaders.
Box 2: Some Community Leaders Speak on Partnership with
Fulani Herders
The Community Leader of Sepeteri
These things (conflict) have been happening for a long time now, in fact way back
to the colonial era. [Communities in] the three neighbouring local councils—Saki
West, Saki East, and Atisbo LGAs—align together to form “Ifedapo” and we
formed a united security on this Fulani herders issue . . . The issue has aggravated
to the level of (a) big dispute between the herders and the farmers in this area.
However, we have formed a local committee that is overseeing matters regarding
issues such as this. It is composed of the farmers, the Fulanis and the community
leaders . . . Now whenever a new Fulani herdsman comes, they will first see the
king and request that they want to settle down in our community. Their leader
“Seriki” will now report to the king concerning the need to give a piece of land to
a new person in their midst. Usually, they settle in the outskirts of the town . . .
After we formed the committee about two months ago; we can notice that things
have changed for the better. Before now, we cannot trace the offenders but now
we can trace them easily.
Kabiyesi, Onikoyi of Ikoyi Ile
Yes there is a cordial relationship between the traditional leader and leaders
of the Fulanis. This is because the Fulanis will not want to step on the
traditional foot; they have respect for the traditional rulers unlike the police .
. . and we cannot send them away since we are all Nigerians. They also have
their own benefit to our community.
Kabiyesi, the Shabi-Iganna
I will work on it [partnership with the Fulani cattle rearers] immediately, in
fact I will direct my chiefs to ensure that anyone identified as a Fulani
herdsman should register with us immediately because we need to know the
number of people within our territory . . . We will need to do this to fashion
out better ways of solving any problem that may develop as a result of their
activities.
Fasona et al.
105
Table 3: Conflict Resolution Methods Employed by the Fulanis
Conflict Resolution (n=104)
By signing agreement
Government intervention
Release of seized cattle
Avoiding host community farmland
By forming committee
By being represented in the community decision
making organ
Just tolerating
Accommodation
Segregation (stay on our own)
Payment for destruction made to farmland
Frequency
64
19
30
57
52
86
%
61.5
18.3
28.8
54.8
50.0
82.7
37
51
23
89
35.6
49.0
22.1
85.6
Conflict Management Initiatives from the Fulani Agro-pastoralists
Payment for damage made to farms top the conflict resolution method employed by
the settled Fulanis. They also made representation to the community decision
making organ and sign agreements to maintain peace and harmony where necessary
(Table 3).
Because of the scale and high frequency of violent conflicts between the
farmers and pastoralists especially in the Eggua zone of Ogun State, the state
government had to intervene in conflict management leading to the drafting of a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Fulani communities and their
host communities. This was about to be signed as of the time of this study.
Based on Fabusoro and Sodiya (2011), collective action for land and conflict
management is another method employed by the settled agro-pastoralists.
Negotiation with the host communities ranks first in the order in which collective
action is utilized (Table 4).
Table 4: Other Collective Actions Employed
Collective Actions for Land and Conflict Management
Negotiation with host communities
Land allocation for building pastoral camps
Demarcation of pastures and forest land
Demarcation of grazing routes
Decision on free grazing on agricultural lands
Participation in host communities’ activities
Payment of required royalties and dues
Negotiation with local government
Linkage with local extension and veterinary
Conflict management and resolution
Frequency
194
79
43
63
15
88
95
35
98
160
%
96.5
39.3
21.4
31.3
07.5
43.8
47.3
17.4
48.8
79.6
Rank
1st
6th
8th
7th
10th
5th
4th
9th
3rd
2nd
106 Journal of Global Initiatives
Other actions include conflict management and resolution and linkage with
local extension and veterinary officers and payment of required royalties and taxes,
participation in host community activities and demarcating grazing routes, pastures,
and forest land for themselves.
Conclusion
Results from this study suggest that the existing resource governance regime has
very little impact on ownership and use of common pool resources with no specific
rules of engagement between crop farmers and agro-pastoralists. The local
communities who are the primordial custodian of the natural resources are almost
totally excluded. Both the pastoralists and community leaders are worried that
conflict with agro-pastoralists has become endemic. The farmer-pastoralist
conflicts are presently beyond the capacity of the LGAs to handle. It thus appears
no concrete plan of action is being pursued by the local councils. This is one of the
effects of the concentration of key aspects of resource governance responsibility on
the state government that is administratively far removed from the conflict theater.
Both the settled agro-pastoralists and host communities are well aware of the danger
posed by conflicts. Just like the local communities, the agro-pastoralists have
instituted conflict resolution mechanisms and collective actions to settle
transgression and misunderstanding with local communities. However, the invading
nomadic Bororos remain a critical stakeholder that must be brought to the
negotiating table. They bring along with them millions of cattle on their southward
migratory drifts. They maintain little or no contact with the settled pastoralists and
the local communities. In the absence of dedicated grazing reserves and well
delineated grazing routes, their movement is likely to continue to orchestrate
conflicts. The structure for a negotiation that involves the Bororos will transcend
the receiving zones to the originating zones, and involve the federal and state
governments with definite policy statements. Such statements must spell-out in
details the roles and responsibilities of, and expectations from, the different actors.
Only then can we hope for a permanent resolution of farmer-pastoralist conflicts in
the savanna.
Acknowledgments
This study is part of the research on community-based management of ecosystems and
natural resources for the improvement of rural livelihoods and food security in the Nigerian
savanna and vulnerability of settled Fulani agro-pastoralists’ livelihoods to climate change
and emerging innovations for adaptation and land accessibility in southwest Nigeria. The two
projects were funded by the International START Secretariat through the grant from CDKN,
NSF, and CCAFS for the GEC Africa Project for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, respectively.
We are grateful to all the partners. We thank the anonymous reviewer for the comments.
Fasona et al.
107
References
Adisa, S. R., & Adekunle, O. A. (2010). Farmer-herdsmen conflicts: A factor analysis of
socio-economic conflict variables among arable crop farmers in North Central Nigeria.
Journal of Human Ecology, 30(1), 1-9.
Anyamba, A., & Tucker, C. J. (2005). Analysis of Sahelian vegetation dynamics using
NOAA AVHRR NDVI data from 1981–2003. Journal of Arid Environments, 63, 596–
614.
Bob, U., & Bronkhorst, S. (2010). Environmental conflicts: Key issues and management
implications. African Journal on Conflict Resolution, 10(2), 103–119.
Bucini, G., & Lambin, E. F. (2002). Fire impacts on vegetation in Central Africa: A remotesensing-based statistical analysis. Applied Geography, 22, 27–48.
Chima, G. N., Ijioma, M. A., Nwagbara, M. O., & Nwaugo, V. O. (2011). Sensitivity of
vegetation to decadal variations in temperature and rainfall over Northern Nigeria.
Journal of Soil Science and Environmental Management, 2(8), 228-236.
Daramola, A. (2005, March 2-3). Global climatic change, environmental resource and
pastoral nomadic management in Nigeria. Paper presented at the IHDP conference on
management of environmental commons, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria.
Ehrenfeld, D. W. (1976). The Conservation of non-resources. American Scientist, 6, 648656.
Fabricus, C., & Koch, E. (2004). Right, resource and rural development: Community-based
natural resource management in Southern Africa. London, England: Earthscan.
Fabusoro, E. (2006). A study on property rights, access to natural resources and livelihood
security among settled Fulani agro-pastoralists in Southwestern Nigeria. A project
funded by International Foundation for Science, (IFS), Sweden and coordinated by
United Nations University Institute of Advanced Studies, Yokohama, Japan; January
2005-June 2006.
Fabusoro, E. (2009). Use of collective action for land accessibility among settled Fulani agropastoralists in southwest Nigeria. Sustainability Science, 4(2), 199-213. doi:
10.1007/s11625-009-0082-4.
Fabusoro E., & Sodiya, C. (2011). Institutions for collective action among settled Fulani
Agro-pastoralists in Southwest Nigeria. The Journal of Agricultural Education and
Extension, 17(1), 53-68. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/
10.1080/1389224X.2011.536349#preview.
Fasona, M., Tadross, M., Abiodun, B., & Omojola, A. (2011). Local climate forcing and ecoclimatic complexes in the wooded savannah of Nigeria. Natural Resources, 20, 155166. doi:10.4236/nr.2011.
Fasona, M., Tadross, M., Abiodun, B., & Omojola, A. (2013). Some implications of
terrestrial ecosystems response to climate change for adaptation in Nigeria’s wooded
savannah. Environmental Development, 5, 73-95. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.envdev.2012.11.003.
Fasona, M. J., & Omojola, A. S. (2005, June 22-23). Climate change, human security and
communal clashes in Nigeria. Proceedings of International Workshop on Human
Security and Climate Change, Holmen Fjord Hotel, Asker, Norway. Retrieved from
www.gechs.org/activities/holmen/Fasona_Omojola.pdf.
Federal Government of Nigeria (2003). Nigeria’s first national communication under the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The Ministry of
Environment of the Federal Republic of Nigeria Abuja. Retrieved from
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/natc/nignc1.pdf.
108 Journal of Global Initiatives
Federal Republic of Nigeria. (2001). The new Nigeria national policy on agriculture.
Retrieved from www.nipc.gov.ng.
Federal Republic of Nigeria. (2001). Nigeria national policy on agriculture. Federal Ministry
of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Abuja, Nigeria.
Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., & Holling, C. (2002). Resilience and
sustainable development: Building adaptive capacity in a world of transformations.
Scientific background paper for the World Summit on Sustainable Development, on
behalf of the Environmental Advisory Council, Stockholm, Sweden.
Gosselink, J. G., Odum, E. P., & Pope, R. M. (1973). The value of the tidal marsh. Center
for Wetland Resources. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press.
Government Office for Science. (2011). Foresight: The future of food and farming. Final
Project Report. London, England: The Government Office for Science.
Grafton, R. Q., Adadmowicz, W., Dupont, D., Nelson, H., Hill, R. J., & Renzetti, S. (2004).
Economics of the environment and natural resources. Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishing.
Hellström, E. (2001). Conflict cultures: Qualitative comparative analysis of environmental
conflicts in forestry. Silva Fennica Monographs 2. Helsinki, Finland: The Finnish
Society of Forest Science and The Finnish Research Institute.
Hoffmann, W. A., & Jackson, R. B. (2000). Vegetation: Climate feedbacks in the conversion
of tropical savannah to grassland. Journal of Climate, 13, 1593-1602.
Hufschmidt, M. M., James, D. E., Meister, A. D., Bower, B. T., & Dixon, J. A. (1983).
Environment, natural systems and development. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins
University Press.
IPCC. (2007). Climate Change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. The Working
Group II Contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth
Assessment Report. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Kottek, M., Grieser, J., Beck, C., Rudolf, B., & Ru, F. (2006). World map of the KöppenGeiger climate classification updated. Meteorologische Zeitschrift, 15(3), 259-263.
Lugo, A. E., & Brinson, M. M. (1979). Primary productivity in saltwater wetlands and its
value. National Symposium on Wetlands. Fourteenth American Water Resources
Conference.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis.
Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Munang R. T., Thiaw, I., & Rivington, M. (2011). Ecosystem management: Tomorrow’s
approach to enhancing food security under a changing climate. Sustainability, 3, 937954. doi: 10.3390/su3070937.
Omotosho, J. B., & Abiodun, J. (2007). A numerical study of moisture build-up and rainfall
over West Africa. Meteorol. Appl., 14, 209–225. doi: 10.1002/met.11.
Pasteur, K. (2011). From vulnerability to resilience (V2R). Warwickshire, England: Practical
Action. Retrieved from http://practicalaction.org/media/view/9654
Rennie, J. K., & Singh, N. (1996). Participatory research for sustainable livelihoods.
Winnipeg, Canada: IISD.