Bolaji

You are absolutely right that the ethnic labels are neither accurate nor a description of what is going on. There is new research by CERDDERT in Zaria that is drawing attention to the underlying reality, the emergence of numerous well armed criminal gangs some ethnic, others multiethnic that are the key actors in the killings and both farming and pastoralists are victims. These criminal groups are straddling between cattle rustling and kidnapping in addition to terrorising communities and we should look at some of these dynamics. I have asked A. S, Mohammed to prepare a summary of their findings which I will distribute.

Moses, Bororo has been the term used for Fulani pastoralists all along and what is new is the phenomenon of these well armed criminal gangs.

Professor Jibrin Ibrahim

Senior Fellow

Centre for Democracy and Development, Abuja

Follow me on twitter @jibrinibrahim17

On 11 January 2018 at 16:36, Moses Ebe Ochonu <meochonu@gmail.com> wrote:

Oga Falola,

You have raised very important appendices to this conversation. While we wait for Jibo's response, let me chime in with my thoughts.

There is indeed a fear of the Fulani, which is both political and existential. This has always been part of Nigeria's tripodal politics of mutual ethnic suspicions. The narrative of a domineering Fulani hegemony has always been a trope of Southern Nigerian and Middle Belt political discourse. Some of the suspicion is real and some of it is grounded in fiction and unfounded fear. I suspect that some of may be be strategic. There is also a rather visceral hostility and suspicion of the Fulani in some quarters. This is largely a politically-driven antipathy. 

There is however genuine outrage at the menace of armed herdsmen militias. Unfortunately, in the current climate, it is difficult to tell the former from the latter as they have overlapped and seeped into each other. That is one of the negative consequences of the incessant, largely ignored killings by these militia. Genuine angst agains the killings have sometimes meshed with a more primordial and political distrust of herdsmen and their non-nomadic Fulani kinsmen. It is quite unfortunate.

It is also unfortunate but hardly surprising that the conversation has morphed into a familiar and rather cliched anti-Fulani rhetoric and the promotion of certain political pathologies about the Fulani as hegemonic and domineering. This is one of the reasons that some of us had been restrained from commenting. If you express outrage at the killings, those who harbor an ethnic or political animus against the Fulani as an ethnic group could latch onto what you say to further their agenda. But you cannot keep quiet when mass murders are being committed on a vast scale.

For starters, it is important to point out that not all Fulani are herdsmen or pastoralists. In fact I would say that MOST Fulani, at least in Nigeria, are not nomadic herdsmen. I attended secondary school in Yola, Adamawa State and it doesn't get more Fulani that Yola. Yet most Fulani in Yola and even in the larger Adamawa State are not nomadic herders. Most of them are actually sedentary farmers and traders and settled herders--or ranchers in the prevailing lingo. So, the ethnicization of this conversation is misleading, and the extension of the culpability of the armed herdsmen killers to all Fulani is wrong.

Even among Fulani herdsmen, a fine-grained distinction needs to be made. We all grew up with nomadic Fulani herders in our communities and consumed their dairy products, which we obtained sometimes by battering grains and other items that they needed. They were largely peaceful. They respected the host communities. Whenever their cattle transgressed in farmlands, they obeyed local traditional authorities and paid compensation. When they felt aggrieved by members of host communities, they approached the local authorities for redress. This still happens with some nomadic herders.

What has changed?

What has changed is that, there is a new group (a sub-group, if you will) of herders who have broken this unwritten rule governing relations between herders and farmers. They no longer respect local constituted authorities and have no respect for farmers or their crops in host communities. They are also armed and ready to use these arms to enforce their will and desires on host communities and to kill and sack communities if and when challenged. Needless to say that this small group of ultra-aggressive and violent herdsmen that many now call the Bororo has made life difficult for the nomadic and semi-nomadic herdsmen that many communities across the country have been familiar with for decades if not centuries. Through their mass murders and other heinous acts, they have given a bad name to all herders and helped create a negative stereotype of herders as mass murderers, rapists, and terrorists. It is this stereotype that is now being mobilized mischievously by some people to reinforce previously existing political suspicions of the Fulani ethnic group as a whole.

I was discussing with a member of this list from Kwara state who told me that in his hometow, people are now scared to go to farms after recent incidents of violence and killings of farmers by armed herdsmen. His story is quite emblematic of what is going on across the country. His hometown, a Muslim kingdom with an emir, has, for centuries, welcomed and hosted nomadic Fulani groups, trading with them, interacting with them, and in some cases even intermarrying with them. So deep and historical are these relations that some of the Fulani have now actually settled with their cattle on the outskirts of the community and for all practical purposes have become a part of its fabric. Recently, however, this picture was shattered when a new group of nomadic Fulani herdsmen arrived in the area armed with sophisticated weapons and, unlike previous groups nomads, began aggressively and recklessly encroaching on farms and killing local farmers who challenged them. The most telling aspect of this story is that these armed nomadic killers have not spared the settled and semi-settled Fulani nomadic communities in the area. These new, aggressive and armed nomads have killed local nomads and sacked Fulani settlements in the area as well, sending shockwaves through the entire community, with both Fulani and non-Fulani running for their lives. When my friend asked his people who these new Fulani nomads are, he was told that both his people and the older, largely peaceful Fulani communities in the area call the new, violent nomads Bororo, clearly a term to differentiate them from the other Fulani nomadic groups that have been coexisting with the people of the area for centuries.

My point in telling this story is to yet again underscore the unhelpfulness of generalization and to reinforce the distinctions that must be made among the Fulani and also among the pastoral herdsmen as a way of isolating and defining the identity and character of the mass killers and terrorists who pose a clear threat to the nation.

The danger of ethnicization and generalization is that we will lose allies among the sedentary Fulani and among Fulani intellectuals and aristocrats, who share ethnic affinity with both groups of herdsmen and would resist a quest for solutions that unfairly castigates and stereotypes the Fulani as an ethnic group. The other downside of course is that such an approach is unfair to the historical Fulani nomadic groups whose descendants continue to desire peaceful coexistence with host communities and have at times, as the case I narrated shows, become victims of the killer herdsmen. This victimhood is not just in having their cattle rustled or in being killed by their armed and violent Fulani nomadic kinsmen. It is also in the fact that, unfortunately, the murderous activities of the armed herdsmen militia have destroyed the trust between host communities and historical, largely peaceful Fulani nomadic and semi-nomadic groups. 

This is precisely the reason why, if I were Fulani, whether I'm a nomad or not, I would support the effort to isolate the Bororo mass murderous and deal decisively with them. I would not want my reputation and ethnicity sullied and subjected further to the kind of castigation, negative stereotyping, and suspicions that you outlined above in your questions to Jibrin.

On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 9:26 AM, Mobolaji Aluko <alukome@gmail.com> wrote:

Jibrin:

This question is really what I cannot understand.  Why put an ethnic label on murderers _ Fulani - , or even a trade label on them - herdsmen - when not only do I  know many Fulani who are neither herdsmen or murderers, but many herdsmen who are also not Fulani or murderers! 

By labeling them constantly as "Fulani herdsmen", you clearly cause some natural defence _ by Fulani individuals, or by herdsmen, or both (MAKH)  - of otherwise indefensible and outrage conduct. 

Unfortunately,   in Nigeria's toxic political environment, these particular dog whistle has become a latter day characterization of the armed wing of the feared "Hausa Fulani hegemony" which many of us in the South and Middle Beltran railed against in earlier decades.  That armed wing used to be the Military... The civilian ogre is now MAKH nationwide,  not even BH, which is confined to the NE.   

That Buhari is now President - that famed defender of yore of Fulani herdsmen before Oyo Governor Lamidi Adesina - - appears maddening to a core group of Nigerians.  His herdsmen mentality could not be used to prevent him in 2015... Should we not try again in 2019, beginning now?  Is the politicization of criminality - which led to the escalation of BH - once again rearing its ugly head through official inertia? 

Honestly, we need new thinking and language.  We must drop the etnicizatiin of criminality - whether pastoral-related killings, or cult- or politics related kidnappings, etc _ so that we undercut all their support oxygen. When criminals are caught and punished, we must ensure that no one begins to say "Oh, it us because they are Fulani, or Yoruba or Igbo, etc" because such characterizations weaken the resolve to go after the crime. 

And there you have it. 

Bolaji Aluko 

On Thursday, January 11, 2018, Jibrin Ibrahim <jibrinibrahim891@gmail.com> wrote:

What is happening to our intellectuals, how can a whole ethnic group be categorised as murderers. 

Professor Jibrin Ibrahim

Senior Fellow

Centre for Democracy and Development, Abuja

Follow me on twitter @jibrinibrahim17

On 11 January 2018 at 10:18, Femi Segun <soloruntoba@gmail.com> wrote:

Added to this spurious attempt to defend the indefensible is the recommendation in the panel report that grazing reserves should be carved out, more or less compulsorily. That option should not and cannot be an imposition, except of course we are saying, the murderers have more rights than the people that they have been killing. As Wole Soyinka said in his piece in the Punch of yesterday, the claim by the Inspector General of Police that the killing  was a product of  communal clashes, bespeaks shameful display of ignorance by a law enforcement officer of his rank. Communal clashes occur among neighbors, not between people who leave far apart.  Whether or not PMB is contesting in 2019, he needs to drop his toga of an ethnically and religiously biased posturing. Why on earth will he declare Operation Python and Operation Dance in the Southeast and South South without deeming fit to deploy Soldiers to the Middle Belt to stop these mindless killings? 

On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 12:46 AM, Moses Ebe Ochonu <meochonu@gmail.com> wrote:

But in Zamfara state, the killings are occuring between cattle rustlers and herders, both of whom are Fulani for the most part, the cattle rustlers sometimes being former herders and vice versa. It was only later that the crisis pitted some Fulani herders against non-Fulani communities as these communities began to take revenge indiscriminately against Fulani herders after their communities were attacked by the Fulani bandits.The president has largely solved that problem by inaugurating in the first few months of his tenure a military task force to deal with the issue in that axis extending all the way to Birnin Gwari in Kaduna State. Perhaps you need to give us the evidence of herdsmen being killed in Benue. Even Miyetti has not alleged killings in Benue; rather it claims that its members lost 1000 cattle to theft when they were migrating from Benue to Nasarawa state, and that the recent massacre was revenge for the loss of said cattle. I'm sure some herdsmen have lost their lives in the expanding collision between armed Bororo herders and farming communities across the country. However, only one group, the herdsmen, have a roving, armed militia that is killing and terrorizing people and sacking communities with impunity from Zamfara to Southern Kaduna, to Plateau, to Benue, to Enugu, to Kogi, Edo, and beyond. There is a pattern of nationwide terror for which the armed wings of Bororo herdsmen are responsible. That is a discernible pattern that should be recognized on its own terms without the forced narrative that killings are not one-sided. It does not help to construct false equalences or to manufacture claims about herdsmen killings that the herdsmen themselves have not made. The  herdsmen militia, mobile and murderous, are an existential threat to Nigeria. I hope Buhari wakes up from his nonchalance and deals with it as the national threat that it is. Jonathan was late to recognize the threat that Boko Haram posed to the nation and he paid a political price for it, not to mention the thousands of needless deaths that occurred as a result of his conspiracy-fueled tardiness. We do not help him recognize the threat when we throw out exculpatory and obfuscatory canards such as "the killings are not one-sided." A pattern of terror stalks the land, and it is traceable to one roving, murderous militia. Pointing to isolated, historically familiar, and sporadic incidents of mutual conflict between herdsmen and their sedentary hosts should not be advanced to take attention away from this national threat. That sporadic, familiar conflict has been with us for centuries and was never a problem until this strangely new group of Bororo herders decided to use brute force, backed by a well armed militia, to take grazing land from farming communities and to punish them when they would not yield.

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Jibrin Ibrahim <jibrinibrahim891@gmail.com> wrote:

In Zamfara State, a killer State, a killer squad has been killing Fulani pastoralists for the past two years and no one is talking about it. In Benue, the same thing has happened and I am told I can't say killing is done by both sides. Yes the media is heavily one-sided in its reporting and the Fulani story is not being told, and it should be. All killings are unacceptable, why can't we take this as a point of departure.

Professor Jibrin Ibrahim

Senior Fellow

Centre for Democracy and Development, Abuja

Follow me on twitter @jibrinibrahim17

On 10 January 2018 at 21:20, segun ogungbemi <seguno2013@gmail.com> wrote:

Legislative Solutions

"There are discordant laws and regulations that legislate livestock production and pastoralism at the regional, national and state levels. Some of the newly emerging laws such as the "anti-grazing" state laws appear to contradict the free movement principle enshrined in the Constitution."

I just want to comment on the above quotation. My response is that the idea of free movement is not elastic. You have freedom of movement insofar as  it does not enchroach on the right of others to personal property and protection of life. For instance,  if I invest in farming and my crops flourish and just before harvesting them a herdsman and his cows enchroach on the farm and destroy the crops,  the law does not permit the herdsman and his animals to violate my right to property. 

There is a mutual respect between one with  freedom and another with right. Each must know his limit to avoid unnessary  conflicts of interest. That is what is missing in both claims of freedom and right agents in Nigeria.

That is where National Orientation Agency and social media should try to educate the masses.   

Segun. 

On Jan 10, 2018 16:43, "Femi Segun" <soloruntoba@gmail.com> wrote:

Oga Toyin

I beg to differ. This position defeats  the pursuit of nation-building and societal harmony. We need an effective state and visionary leadership to manage the various centripetal and centrifugal forces. Saying we don't need them is an escapist answer. Damage has been done and still being done, but we cannot hands off in defeat.Many of us cried out last year  when some misguided youth gave ultimatum to the Igbos to leave the North. We must help this government to think right and act justly.

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 4:04 PM, Oluwatoyin Vincent Adepoju <toyin.adepoju@gmail.com> wrote:

The Fulani herdsmen problem is the work of a group of terrorists trying to obtain other people's land through massacre.

Please stay in your region with your cows.

We dont need them.

toyion

On 9 January 2018 at 21:50, Jibrin Ibrahim <jibrinibrahim891@gmail.com> wrote:

Please note that the killing is not one sided as is often reported in the press. Militia groups have emerged to kill herdsmen and they are having a lot of success. Ranches is very misunderstood concept and only operates in thinly populated dry lands where a lot of land can be allocated to cattle owners, thats not our situation. The issue has become very emotive and objective discussion has become difficult but we are trying to do just that.

Professor Jibrin Ibrahim

Senior Fellow

Centre for Democracy and Development, Abuja

Follow me on twitter @jibrinibrahim17

On 9 January 2018 at 14:50, Femi Segun <soloruntoba@gmail.com> wrote:

Much as one should commend the efforts of the panel members who put up this report, I hasten to say that it is very cosmetic and somehow apologetic of a certain interest-the interest of the Pastoralists. One would have expected that a panel that is made up of such experts should go as far as recommending restorative  justice for the families of thousands that have been killed by the Pastoralists. I read an article in the Punch today, where the leader of the Myetti Allah in Benue State said his group had to kill 25 human beings because 1000 cows were stolen. Has life become so cheap as to be trading human lives for cows? Ideally, reports of this  nature should  have inputs from all the parties that have been affected by the ongoing conflicts in one way or the other. Several arguments have been put out there on the imperative of having cattle ranches. Even though this was mentioned in the report, it is obvious that the preference is the continuation of the current order of moving cattle from the North to the South-with all the consequences. This preference was presented as if it is law, that cannot be challenged. In a plural society like ours, such proclivity can be interpreted to mean an expression  of superiority of one group over another. Can we claim to be a member of the  civilised world if we lack the courage to say or do  what is obtainable in other civilised societies? To what extent can a farmer from Ekiti or Umuahia be allowed to take over land by the force of arms in Sokoto or Kaduna in the name of constitutional provision of freedom of movement? In order to forestall the worsening of the violence and other social consequences that the report rightly highlighted, I will suggest that the recommendations should be rethought and redrafted to acknowledge the pain that those who have needlessly suffered loss of lives are going through and proffer solutions to alleviating such pains in form of compensations. The Government should also stop the current  parochial approach to a festering national sore by developing the courage to apprehend, try in the court of law and punish people who murder human beings  in exchange for cows. Methink there are laws that cover stealing in Nigeria. Those who are found to have stolen cows should also be tried and given just sentence. Additionally, the hard option of cattle ranches should be pursued rather than hiding under the constitution to justify the wanton destruction of lives and livelihood of farmers, across the country. This report falls short of expectations in terms of providing intellectual leadership on nation building and cohesion, especially coming from such a distinguished panel. 

Samuel

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 12:41 PM, Jibrin Ibrahim <jibrinibrahim891@gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

Pastoralist-Farmers Conflicts and the Search for Peaceful Resolution

 

Memorandum by the Nigerian Working Group on Peace Building and Governance

 

Abuja, 8^th January 2018

 

Executive Summary

Pastoralists-farmers' conflicts in Nigeria have grown, spread and intensified over the past decade and today poses a threat to national survival. Thousands of people have been killed, communities have been destroyed and so many farmers and pastoralists have lost their lives and property in an orgy of killings and destruction that is not only destroying livelihoods but also affecting national cohesion. Nigeria has about 19 million cattle much of it in the hands of pastoralists and we need to seek solutions to the problem of pastoralism while resolving the problem of insecurity that has arisen.

 

The Problem

Nigeria's population has grown from 33 million in 1950 to about 192.3 million today. This phenomenal increase of the population has put enormous pressure on land and water resources used by farmers and pastoralists. One of the outcomes of this process has been the blockage of transhumance routes and loss of grazing land to agricultural expansion and the increased southward movement of pastoralists has led to increased conflict with local communities. This is particularly the case in the Middle Belt – notably in Plateau, Kaduna, Niger, Nassarawa, Benue, Taraba, and Adamawa States. The conflicts primarily involve Fulani pastoralists and local farming communities. As violence between herdsmen and farmers has grown and developed into criminality and rural banditry, popular narratives in the form of hate speech have exacerbated the crisis.

 

Grazing Reserves As Possible Solution

It is clear that Nigeria and indeed Africa have to plan towards the transformation of pastoralism into settled forms of animal husbandry. The establishment of grazing reserves provides the opportunity for practicing a more limited form of pastoralism and is therefore a pathway towards a more settled form of animal husbandry. Nigeria has a total of 417 grazing reserves out of which only about 113 have been gazetted. Whether we support or oppose pastoralism, it is clear that at least in the short and medium term, many herds must continue to practice seasonal migration between dry and wet season grazing areas. Ultimately, there is the need for permanent settlement of pastoralists.

 

The Law, Politics and Pastoralism

One of the greatest difficulties in addressing and resolving issues surrounding pastoralism is the politicisation of legal regimes and the blockages to the enactment of or implementation of laws that can redress the key challenges posed. In 2016 for example, a bill was proposed - ''A Bill for an Act to establish Grazing Reserve in each of the states of the Federation Nigeria to improve agriculture yield from livestock farming and curb incessant conflicts between cattle farmers and crop farmers in Nigeria'' was thrown out. There is an emerging conflict between the constitutional principle on free movement of persons and goods and laws emerging in some States restricting movement. Some States have enacted laws or are processing bills to prevent open grazing on their territory. There are four initiatives so far in Benue, Ekiti, Taraba and Edo States. Could such laws be effective in prohibiting pastoralism, which is practiced by millions of Nigerians?

 

Developing a Comprehensive Policy Framework

A new policy framework on the farmers-pastoralists crisis should be developed that is both comprehensive and mutually beneficial to both groups. An inter-ministerial committee should be constituted with experts and stakeholder membership to draw up the framework. There must be a consultative process that listens to the concerns of all stakeholders in developing the new framework so that the outcome would have national ownership. Pastoralism is not sustainable in Nigeria over the long term due to high population growth rate, expansion of farming and loss of pasture and cattle routes. At the same time, pastoralism cannot end or be prohibited in the short term, as there are strong cultural and political economy reasons for its existence. The new policy should develop a plan for a transitional period during which new systems would be put in place. The framework should map out the duration, strategy and timelines for the transition plan. Finally, a comprehensive approach to address the growing crisis associated with violence affecting pastoralism and farmers in Nigeria is necessary.

Introduction

Pastoralists-farmers' conflicts in Nigeria have grown, spread and intensified over the past decade and today poses a threat to national survival. Thousands of people have been killed, communities have been destroyed and so many farmers and pastoralists have lost their lives and property in an orgy of killings and destruction that is not only destroying livelihoods but also affecting national cohesion. Each day, we witness more reprisal killings that are simply making the possibilities of peaceful resolution more difficult. Rural banditry is becoming the norm in the Nigerian hinterland and has been transformed into a vicious criminal activity. The result is that the scale of loss of both herds and human life has been escalating and the victims are on all sides – subsistence farmers, commercial farmers and pastoralists. Nonetheless, we write this memo to say we cannot give up to hate and destruction, let's pause, reflect and seek a way out of the crisis.

 

Nigeria has a large pastoral population the logic of whose livelihood is often misunderstood. What is better understood is the culture of farming, which is rooted in a specific location and has activities that take place regularly. The assumption that pastoralism is in itself an irrational production system is far from the truth. Pastoralism is the main livestock production system in much of Africa where pastoralists live in semi arid zones. It is a historically developed strategy to cope with the uncertainties associated with climate change, build up of parasites and other related challenges. It is above all an efficient way to produce livestock at relatively low prices through the use of non-commercial feeding stock. Historically, pastoralists have been able to meet the meat demand in West Africa with a relatively high level of efficiency without government subsidy for generations.

Different methods through the use of farm residue and open range grazing has allowed this trend to flourish. Nigeria has a landmass of 98.3 million hectares, 82 million hectares of arable land of which about 34 million hectares are currently under cultivation. In crop farming, human beings only directly utilize about a quarter of the total biomass. The other three quarters is in the form of crop residue and low quality crop, which is not directly useful to people. It is this residue that cattle (ruminants) convert into meat and milk. In addition to this, cattle also utilize grasses on fallow lands, non-arable poor quality lands, open ranges and fadama in the same manner. Pastoralists move their animals to these locations to access these opportunities. This system of production is breaking down today as violent conflicts between pastoralists and farmers have arisen and created a major national crisis.

The Problem

Nigeria's population has grown from 33 million in 1950 to about 192.3 million today. The United Nations recently projected more growth in terms of population in the coming years, 364 million in 2030 and 480 million in 2050 respectively. This phenomenal increase of the population has put enormous pressure on land and water resources used by farmers and pastoralists. Specifically, the demographic increase has led to an expansion in cultivated farmland and a reduction in available grazing land for pastoralists that is characterised by competition over dwindling resources. In the far north, the impact of desertification as well as the crisis of energy, which has resulted in deforestation, coupled with climatic uncertainty and lower rainfall have made it more difficult to sustain increasing populations, pushing many farmers and pastoralists with livestock southwards. This has happened gradually over a period of decades – with an apparent increase over the past decade – and has added to pressure on land and water in central and southern Nigeria.

 

One of the outcomes of this process has been the blockage of transhumance routes and loss of grazing land to agricultural expansion and the increased southward movement of pastoralists has led to increased conflict with local communities. This is particularly the case in the Middle Belt – notably in Plateau, Kaduna, Niger, Nassarawa, Benue, Taraba, and Adamawa States. The conflicts often have localised dynamics, but primarily involve Fulani pastoralists and local farming communities.

 

The Nigerian state has a relatively weak rural presence and has neglected the agrarian sector since the 1970s, when oil revenues began to dominate the economy. There have been few improvements in agricultural productivity and livestock production as a result of the dependence on oil revenues, which have not been reinvested in productive economic activities. State response in the context of the lingering conflicts between farmers and pastoralists has been both ad hoc and reactive, with no concrete and sustainable strategies for conflict management and peace building beyond the deployment of security or establishment of commissions of inquiries. One of the key pathways here is for the state to be more proactive in its responses by putting in place mechanisms that are institutionalised and sustainable both at the local and state levels.

 

As violence between herdsmen and farmers has grown and developed into criminality and rural banditry, popular narratives creating meaning, context and (mis) understandings have been emerging. The narratives emerging on rural banditry in the media and in popular discourse are becoming part of the drivers for expanding conflicts in the country. The protagonists in this saga are often presented as being nomadic Fulani cattle herders, who are mostly Muslims, and sedentary farmer communities of several other ethnic extractions, who are often, but not always non-Muslims. These two distinct groups are usually depicted as perpetrators and victims, respectively. Perspectives of the social, religious and ethnic characteristics of these rural communities are framed into expansive essentialist discourses that actively breed and sustain suspicion and distrust. The result is negative stereotyping between "the one" and "the other" that lead further to ethnic and religious bigotry which fuels the hate process, culminating in further chains of attacks and counter or revenge attacks being exchanged between these different groups. Nigeria urgently needs to find pathways to get out of the crisis and one approach may be the development of grazing reserves for pastoralists.

 

Grazing Reserves As Possible Solution

It is clear that Nigeria and indeed Africa have to plan towards the transformation of pastoralism into settled forms of animal husbandry. The establishment of grazing reserves provides the opportunity for practicing a more limited form of pastoralism and is therefore a pathway towards a more settled form of animal husbandry. Grazing reserves are areas of land demarcated, set aside and reserved for exclusive or semi-exclusive use by pastoralists. Currently, Nigeria has a total of 417 grazing reserves all over the country, out of which only about 113 have been gazetted. There are many problems facing the implementation of the provisions of the 1965 Grazing Reserve Law and the management of the established grazing reserves. First, most of the grazing reserves were established by the then Northern Regional Government. Since the 1970's subsequent military and civilian governments have in effect abandoned the policy of establishing and developing grazing reserves. Secondly, State governments have not been diligent in sustaining previous policies and have not surveyed and gazetted most of the designated grazing reserves. Indeed, only 113 (about 27%) of the 417 proposed grazing reserves have been gazetted.

 

Whether we support or oppose pastoralism, it is clear that at least in the short and medium term, many herds must continue to practice seasonal migration between dry and wet season grazing areas, incorporating past harvest grazing farmland in the highly developed and ecologically sound pattern of transhumance evolved by the pastoralist over the centuries. This is an important point to make at this point when many political actors think it is possible to simply and abruptly ban open grazing. There is indeed, the need for permanent settlement of pastoralists both in the far north and semi humid zone of the middle belt. It is important to focus on the development of grazing reserves as part of the solution.

 

The Law, Politics and Pastoralism

One of the greatest difficulties in addressing and resolving issues surrounding pastoralism is the politicisation of legal regimes and the blockages to the enactment of or implementation of laws that can redress the key challenges posed. In 2016 for example, a bill was proposed - ''A Bill for an Act to establish Grazing Reserve in each of the states of the Federation Nigeria to improve agriculture yield from livestock farming and curb incessant conflicts between cattle farmers and crop farmers in Nigeria.'' The National Assembly on the basis that the Bill appeared to be seeking to favour one particular profession carried out by mainly one ethnic group, the Fulani, threw it out. The problem is that if we cannot have grazing reserves and if pastoralists cannot move, how do we expect the 19 million cattle grazing in the country to survive and how do we protect our Constitutional principle of free movement.

 

Free Movement and Restrictions to Transhumance

There is an emerging conflict between the constitutional principle on free movement of persons and goods and laws emerging in some States restricting movement. In Section 41(1) of the Nigerian Constitution, it is stated that:

 

''Every citizen of Nigeria is entitled to move freely throughout Nigeria and to reside in any part thereof, and no citizen of Nigeria shall be expelled from Nigeria or refused entry thereby or exit therefrom.''

 

Some States have enacted laws or are processing bills to prevent open grazing on their territory. There are four initiatives so far:

 

1.   Ekiti state: Prohibition of Cattle and Other Ruminants Grazing in Ekiti, 2016.

2.   Taraba state: Anti-Open Grazing Prohibition and Ranches Establishment Bill 2017. 'A bill for a law to prohibit open rearing and grazing of livestock and provide for the establishment of ranches and the Taraba State livestock and ranches administration and control committee and for others connected thereto 2017'.

3.   Edo State Bill: A Bill for A Law to Establish the Edo State Control of Nomadic Cattle Rearing/Grazing Law and for Other Purposes.

4.   Benue State Law: A Law to Prohibit Open Rearing and Grazing of Livestock and Provide for the Establishment of Ranches and Livestock Administration, Regulation and Control and for Other Matters Connected Therewith, 2017.

It is worthwhile posing the question whether laws can be effective in prohibiting pastoralism, which is practiced by millions of Nigerians. As some of the laws have already been passed, they would have to be tested in court. It is important to stress however that the Constitution guarantees free movement of persons and goods across Nigeria and no State government can withdraw constitutionally entrenched rights. Secondly, following a legislation by the Ogun State Government and the Supreme Court Judgment on the matter cited as "A.G. OGUN STATE V. ALHAJA AYINKE ABERUAGBA (1985) 1 NWLR PG. 395" States were barred from interfering with inter-state commerce and the free movement of goods and services. At that time, Ogun State had tried to control and tax goods entering from other States and the Supreme Court ruled that it would be chaotic if States enacted any laws they please restricting movement of goods and services in the Federation. It was this judgment that led to the introduction of value added tax (VAT) as a State tax that is determined at the national level and collected by the Federal Government, which takes an administrative fee and redistributes the proceeds back to the States. The key issue however is that pastoralism has developed into a national crisis that is leading to increased violence so a legal approach alone cannot resolve the issue. It is therefore important to negotiate a national policy framework that would protect the interests of both farmers and herders. The Federal Government should take the initiative of negotiating a consensual policy framework that would address the issues.

 

Developing a Comprehensive Policy Framework

Livestock production in Nigeria is in existential crisis and the country lacks a cohesive and comprehensive policy framework for livestock development and regulation in Nigeria. The defunct Northern Grazing Reserve Law has not been updated, the Land Use Act of 1978 is dysfunctional, emerging state grazing reserve laws, the ECOWAS Transhumance Protocol and other related international instruments have to be updated and streamlined.

Recommendation

Piecemeal of sectorial approach to livestock development will not suffice. A new policy framework should be developed that is both comprehensive and must be mutually beneficial to pastoralists and farmers. Any policy that does not take into consideration the welfare of both sides will most likely fail or meet resistance by either side. An inter-ministerial committee should be constituted with experts and stakeholder membership to draw up the framework. There must be a consultative process that listens to the concerns of all stakeholders in developing the new framework so that the outcome would have national ownership.

 

The Future of Pastoralism and Animal Husbandry

Pastoralism is not sustainable in Nigeria over the long term due to high population growth rate, expansion of farming and loss of pasture and cattle routes. At the same time, pastoralism cannot end of be prohibited in the short term as there are strong cultural and political economy reasons for its existence. It is important therefore to develop a plan for a transitional period during which new systems would be put in place.

Recommendations

Experts should be assembled to map out the duration, strategy and timelines for the transition plan. As there is no miracle model for solving the problems, the plan should simultaneously pursue a number of models including:

i.      Ranching can be pursued as one of the possible models in areas with lower population densities in the North East (Sambisa Game Reserve in Borno State) and North West (Gidan Jaja Grazing Reserve in Zamfara State);

ii.    Semi-intensive systems of animal husbandry should be pursued accompanied with requisite investment in infrastructure, training, extension, marketing and animal health service delivery in conjuncture with the private sector;

iii.   The traditional form of pastoralism should continue for a period to be agreed upon with some improvements (in the form of coordinated mobility between wet and dry season grazing areas and effective management of farmers and pastoralists relations);

iv.  Use of and development of grazing reserves to target pastoralists with large stocks where skills for pasture production, large milk production, etc can be promoted.

v.    Development of integrated crop-livestock systems with farmers and pastoralists being encouraged to keep some animals in their farms.

vi.  In order to meet the feeding needs of herds, alternative low water and drought resistant grasses should be produced, in response to the impact of desertification on fodder production.

 

Modernisation of Livestock

Nigeria has one of the lowest productivity levels of livestock in the world. It is for this reason that Nigeria imports very large quantities of milk, fish and chicken. The Nigerian herd requires sustained efforts at quality development based on a modernisation strategy that would transform the industry and move the country towards the objective of self-reliance.

Recommendations

The programme for the country's transition to modern forms of animal husbandry must be accelerated and funded. The national stock would require rapid improvement and modernisation to meet market demands for meat, milk, hides and other products from the industry:

i.               Commercial ranches should be established in some of the sparsely populated zones in the North East and North West;

ii.             The business community should be encouraged through policy measures to invest in the establishment of modern dairy farms;

iii.            Sensitisation programmes should be undertaken on the values of livestock improvement and breeding centres for the production of quality heifers to improve pastoral stock should be developed all over the country.

iv.           Efforts should be made towards modelling best practices of pastoral-farmer relations as evident in countries such as Chad, Ethiopia and Niger, where the existence of institutionalised and functional mechanisms for pre-empting and resolving conflicts between farmers and pastoralists enable them to live in peace.

 

Growing Conflicts and Imperative of Peace Building

Over the past decade, there has been a dramatic explosion of violent conflicts associated with the deteriorating relationship between farmers and herders, cattle rustling and rural banditry in Nigeria. There is also limited knowledge about who the perpetrators are and their motives.

 

Recommendations

A comprehensive approach to necessary to address the growing crisis associated with violence affecting pastoralism and farmers in Nigeria. The Federal Government should commission a large-scale research endeavour to carry out in-depth study to understand the reasons for the escalation of violence, key actors, motivations and agency fuelling the crisis.

 

The Boko Haram Insurgency

Specific measures are required to address the Boko Haram insurgency North Eastern States of Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Taraba and Yobe, which have close to 40% of the total cattle, sheep and goats of the National herd. These States also have the highest number of grazing reserves 255 or 61% of the 415 nationally identified grazing reserves. There are also many kilometres of stock routes interconnecting these reserves. The highest number of transhumance and trade cattle, sheep and goats from ECOWAS countries, Chad, Cameroun, Central African Republic and other countries, come into Nigeria on North Eastern International Transhumance Route.

 

Recommendations

In addition to the search for improving security in the zone through the use of security forces and mobilizing the civil population, some policy decisions are required. The military should be encouraged to pursue the path of ranching as it has already decided to. The Sambisa Grazing Reserve (4800 ha) is an ideal and symbolic place to take-off by establishing a ranch run by the military. It would significantly improve the security situation in the zone and encourage cooperation between pastoralists and the military. In the North West, the military should also be encouraged to create ranches in the Gidan Jaja Grazing Reserve (565,000 ha) for the same purpose of improving security and cooperation with pastoralists.

 

Growth of Hate and Dangerous Speech

Hate speech has now become a generator and accelerator of violent conflicts and the phenomenon of fake news is worsening its negative impact.

 

Recommendations

There is need for the development of a media code to be used in sensitizing the media on the relevant international standards on reporting issues of conflict and banditry. This process should involve conflict sensitivity and safety training and it should be based on very strict journalistic standards. Appropriate laws and regulations should be developed at both the federal and state levels towards ensuring that the margin of what is seen, as "free speech" in the media will be effectively regulated.  

 

Breakdown of Traditional Conflict Resolution Mechanisms

One of the most important dimensions of the growing conflicts between pastoralists and farmers has been the breakdown of traditional conflict resolution mechanisms. In the past, when conflicts arise, they were settles by village heads and ardos, Fulani community leaders and if the need for payment of compensation arises, there were traditional systems and knowledge of how to assess damage done and the amount necessary to compensate for the damage and not profiteering. What we see today as a breakdown of traditional authority in the context of conflict management is a consequence of the take over of their powers by the state at the federal, state and local government levels, through the ad hoc measures that are often time wasting and whose recommendations are not implemented.

 

Recommendations

Cattle routes should be restored and significant investment made in restoring traditional conflict resolution mechanisms. As massive corruption has accompanied the increased presence of the police and courts in matters affecting farmers and herders, there should be advocacy and administrative guidance to return to traditional methods of conflict resolution. There should be capacity development of farmers and herders associations so that they play a more positive role in the process.

 

The Environmental and Climate Smart Pastoralism

Livestock produce some greenhouse emissions and pollutants. These can however be mitigated and even reversed by the sustainability of the methods that are used. On the whole, pastoralism is the only renewable non-extractive use of Ryland resources and it plays an essential role in maintaining soil and water quality. In addition, it slows down the loss of biodiversity.

 

Recommendations

Intensive capacity building is required in promoting and advocating for climate smart approaches to animal husbandry including the prevention of overgrazing, promoting integration of grazing and manure provision for farms and coordinated movement between ecological zones in the dry and wet seasons.

 

Legislative Solutions

There are discordant laws and regulations that legislate livestock production and pastoralism at the regional, national and state levels. Some of the newly emerging laws such as the "anti-grazing" state laws appear to contradict the free movement principle enshrined in the Constitution.

Recommendations

i.               A harmonization of relevant laws and policies that governs grazing reserves. Specifically, the 1965 Grazing Reserve Law can be revived based on section 315 of the 1999 constitution in the 19 northern states.

ii.             This should be complemented with a national review and protection of traditional stock routes;

iii.            Regional instruments governing pastoralism should be protected and above all domesticated;

iv.           In addition to the laws, consultative process between farming and pastoral communities are required to review the effect of statutes and regulations on routine practices of animal husbandry.

Expanding Grazing Reserves

The Nigerian livestock industry is largely dependent on natural vegetation. Although there is a vast hectrage of natural vegetation in the country they are not maximally utilized due to poor planning and conflicting government policies. It was estimated that there are over 40 million hectares of grazing land in Nigeria, out of which only 3 million hectares are specifically tagged as grazing reserves.

Recommendations

The idea to encourage nomads to settle was first made in 1942 but never implemented. A clear policy of land grant to pastoralists should be developed and implemented by state governments.

 

 

Digital Tracking of Cattle

The Katsina State Government has just launched a digital tracking system for cattle in the State. It involves inserting microchips in the animals skin and tracking them with mobile phones. The use of such technologies could help address the problem of cattle rustling and violence that have become so rampant. Such initiatives should be supported.

 

The Construction of Positive Narratives

The atmosphere between farming and pastoral communities is extremely bitter and negative. Support should be provided for creative writers in Nollywood, Kannywood, radio and television to create new narratives showing how the interaction between the two groups could be peaceful and mutually beneficial. Above all, the National Orientation Agency (NOA), as an institution with presence across the 774 Local Government Areas (LGAs) of the country, should provide these critical services.

                                                     

Signed by

 

Professor Ibrahim Gambari

General Martin Luther Agwai (Rtd)

Professor Jibrin Ibrahim

Professor Attahiru Jega

Dr. Usman Bugaje

Dr. Chris Kwaja

Ambassador Fatima Balla

Dr. Nguyan Fesse

Mrs. Aisha Muhammed – Oyebode

Mallam Y. Z. Ya'u

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Professor Jibrin Ibrahim

Senior Fellow

Centre for Democracy and Development, Abuja

Follow me on twitter @jibrinibrahim17

--
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to

--
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Jibrin, 

Buhari."s administration is characterized by inertia:  inertia in changing ancien regime officials, in choosing ministers and ambassadors, in subsidy removal, in corrupt officers removal, in reshuffling cabinet, in addressing head on these issues of pastoral, political and cult-related killings and kidnappings.  Some official messaging has been amateurish - witness the recent dead people appointments.   

Buhari is now healthy, so old excuses need not apply. There needs to be much greater proactively onsmy fronts  and forward looking-Ness, not rear mirror viewing. 

The fact of the matter is that all activities in Nigeria have ethnic, political, religious, economic, revolutionary and criminal dimensions.  The question in each particular case is the weight given to each factor, and whether there is broad and even official approval by the class that they claim to represent.  

Bolaji Aluko 

On Thursday, January 11, 2018, Jibrin Ibrahim <jibrinibrahim891@gmail.com> wrote:

Bolaji

You are absolutely right that the ethnic labels are neither accurate nor a description of what is going on. There is new research by CERDDERT in Zaria that is drawing attention to the underlying reality, the emergence of numerous well armed criminal gangs some ethnic, others multiethnic that are the key actors in the killings and both farming and pastoralists are victims. These criminal groups are straddling between cattle rustling and kidnapping in addition to terrorising communities and we should look at some of these dynamics. I have asked A. S, Mohammed to prepare a summary of their findings which I will distribute.

Moses, Bororo has been the term used for Fulani pastoralists all along and what is new is the phenomenon of these well armed criminal gangs.

Professor Jibrin Ibrahim

Senior Fellow

Centre for Democracy and Development, Abuja

Follow me on twitter @jibrinibrahim17

On 11 January 2018 at 16:36, Moses Ebe Ochonu <meochonu@gmail.com> wrote:

Oga Falola,

You have raised very important appendices to this conversation. While we wait for Jibo's response, let me chime in with my thoughts.

There is indeed a fear of the Fulani, which is both political and existential. This has always been part of Nigeria's tripodal politics of mutual ethnic suspicions. The narrative of a domineering Fulani hegemony has always been a trope of Southern Nigerian and Middle Belt political discourse. Some of the suspicion is real and some of it is grounded in fiction and unfounded fear. I suspect that some of may be be strategic. There is also a rather visceral hostility and suspicion of the Fulani in some quarters. This is largely a politically-driven antipathy. 

There is however genuine outrage at the menace of armed herdsmen militias. Unfortunately, in the current climate, it is difficult to tell the former from the latter as they have overlapped and seeped into each other. That is one of the negative consequences of the incessant, largely ignored killings by these militia. Genuine angst agains the killings have sometimes meshed with a more primordial and political distrust of herdsmen and their non-nomadic Fulani kinsmen. It is quite unfortunate.

It is also unfortunate but hardly surprising that the conversation has morphed into a familiar and rather cliched anti-Fulani rhetoric and the promotion of certain political pathologies about the Fulani as hegemonic and domineering. This is one of the reasons that some of us had been restrained from commenting. If you express outrage at the killings, those who harbor an ethnic or political animus against the Fulani as an ethnic group could latch onto what you say to further their agenda. But you cannot keep quiet when mass murders are being committed on a vast scale.

For starters, it is important to point out that not all Fulani are herdsmen or pastoralists. In fact I would say that MOST Fulani, at least in Nigeria, are not nomadic herdsmen. I attended secondary school in Yola, Adamawa State and it doesn't get more Fulani that Yola. Yet most Fulani in Yola and even in the larger Adamawa State are not nomadic herders. Most of them are actually sedentary farmers and traders and settled herders--or ranchers in the prevailing lingo. So, the ethnicization of this conversation is misleading, and the extension of the culpability of the armed herdsmen killers to all Fulani is wrong.

Even among Fulani herdsmen, a fine-grained distinction needs to be made. We all grew up with nomadic Fulani herders in our communities and consumed their dairy products, which we obtained sometimes by battering grains and other items that they needed. They were largely peaceful. They respected the host communities. Whenever their cattle transgressed in farmlands, they obeyed local traditional authorities and paid compensation. When they felt aggrieved by members of host communities, they approached the local authorities for redress. This still happens with some nomadic herders.

What has changed?

What has changed is that, there is a new group (a sub-group, if you will) of herders who have broken this unwritten rule governing relations between herders and farmers. They no longer respect local constituted authorities and have no respect for farmers or their crops in host communities. They are also armed and ready to use these arms to enforce their will and desires on host communities and to kill and sack communities if and when challenged. Needless to say that this small group of ultra-aggressive and violent herdsmen that many now call the Bororo has made life difficult for the nomadic and semi-nomadic herdsmen that many communities across the country have been familiar with for decades if not centuries. Through their mass murders and other heinous acts, they have given a bad name to all herders and helped create a negative stereotype of herders as mass murderers, rapists, and terrorists. It is this stereotype that is now being mobilized mischievously by some people to reinforce previously existing political suspicions of the Fulani ethnic group as a whole.

I was discussing with a member of this list from Kwara state who told me that in his hometow, people are now scared to go to farms after recent incidents of violence and killings of farmers by armed herdsmen. His story is quite emblematic of what is going on across the country. His hometown, a Muslim kingdom with an emir, has, for centuries, welcomed and hosted nomadic Fulani groups, trading with them, interacting with them, and in some cases even intermarrying with them. So deep and historical are these relations that some of the Fulani have now actually settled with their cattle on the outskirts of the community and for all practical purposes have become a part of its fabric. Recently, however, this picture was shattered when a new group of nomadic Fulani herdsmen arrived in the area armed with sophisticated weapons and, unlike previous groups nomads, began aggressively and recklessly encroaching on farms and killing local farmers who challenged them. The most telling aspect of this story is that these armed nomadic killers have not spared the settled and semi-settled Fulani nomadic communities in the area. These new, aggressive and armed nomads have killed local nomads and sacked Fulani settlements in the area as well, sending shockwaves through the entire community, with both Fulani and non-Fulani running for their lives. When my friend asked his people who these new Fulani nomads are, he was told that both his people and the older, largely peaceful Fulani communities in the area call the new, violent nomads Bororo, clearly a term to differentiate them from the other Fulani nomadic groups that have been coexisting with the people of the area for centuries.

My point in telling this story is to yet again underscore the unhelpfulness of generalization and to reinforce the distinctions that must be made among the Fulani and also among the pastoral herdsmen as a way of isolating and defining the identity and character of the mass killers and terrorists who pose a clear threat to the nation.

The danger of ethnicization and generalization is that we will lose allies among the sedentary Fulani and among Fulani intellectuals and aristocrats, who share ethnic affinity with both groups of herdsmen and would resist a quest for solutions that unfairly castigates and stereotypes the Fulani as an ethnic group. The other downside of course is that such an approach is unfair to the historical Fulani nomadic groups whose descendants continue to desire peaceful coexistence with host communities and have at times, as the case I narrated shows, become victims of the killer herdsmen. This victimhood is not just in having their cattle rustled or in being killed by their armed and violent Fulani nomadic kinsmen. It is also in the fact that, unfortunately, the murderous activities of the armed herdsmen militia have destroyed the trust between host communities and historical, largely peaceful Fulani nomadic and semi-nomadic groups. 

This is precisely the reason why, if I were Fulani, whether I'm a nomad or not, I would support the effort to isolate the Bororo mass murderous and deal decisively with them. I would not want my reputation and ethnicity sullied and subjected further to the kind of castigation, negative stereotyping, and suspicions that you outlined above in your questions to Jibrin.

On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 9:26 AM, Mobolaji Aluko <alukome@gmail.com> wrote:

Jibrin:

This question is really what I cannot understand.  Why put an ethnic label on murderers _ Fulani - , or even a trade label on them - herdsmen - when not only do I  know many Fulani who are neither herdsmen or murderers, but many herdsmen who are also not Fulani or murderers! 

By labeling them constantly as "Fulani herdsmen", you clearly cause some natural defence _ by Fulani individuals, or by herdsmen, or both (MAKH)  - of otherwise indefensible and outrage conduct. 

Unfortunately,   in Nigeria's toxic political environment, these particular dog whistle has become a latter day characterization of the armed wing of the feared "Hausa Fulani hegemony" which many of us in the South and Middle Beltran railed against in earlier decades.  That armed wing used to be the Military... The civilian ogre is now MAKH nationwide,  not even BH, which is confined to the NE.   

That Buhari is now President - that famed defender of yore of Fulani herdsmen before Oyo Governor Lamidi Adesina - - appears maddening to a core group of Nigerians.  His herdsmen mentality could not be used to prevent him in 2015... Should we not try again in 2019, beginning now?  Is the politicization of criminality - which led to the escalation of BH - once again rearing its ugly head through official inertia? 

Honestly, we need new thinking and language.  We must drop the etnicizatiin of criminality - whether pastoral-related killings, or cult- or politics related kidnappings, etc _ so that we undercut all their support oxygen. When criminals are caught and punished, we must ensure that no one begins to say "Oh, it us because they are Fulani, or Yoruba or Igbo, etc" because such characterizations weaken the resolve to go after the crime. 

And there you have it. 

Bolaji Aluko 

On Thursday, January 11, 2018, Jibrin Ibrahim <jibrinibrahim891@gmail.com> wrote:

What is happening to our intellectuals, how can a whole ethnic group be categorised as murderers. 

Professor Jibrin Ibrahim

Senior Fellow

Centre for Democracy and Development, Abuja

Follow me on twitter @jibrinibrahim17

On 11 January 2018 at 10:18, Femi Segun <soloruntoba@gmail.com> wrote:

Added to this spurious attempt to defend the indefensible is the recommendation in the panel report that grazing reserves should be carved out, more or less compulsorily. That option should not and cannot be an imposition, except of course we are saying, the murderers have more rights than the people that they have been killing. As Wole Soyinka said in his piece in the Punch of yesterday, the claim by the Inspector General of Police that the killing  was a product of  communal clashes, bespeaks shameful display of ignorance by a law enforcement officer of his rank. Communal clashes occur among neighbors, not between people who leave far apart.  Whether or not PMB is contesting in 2019, he needs to drop his toga of an ethnically and religiously biased posturing. Why on earth will he declare Operation Python and Operation Dance in the Southeast and South South without deeming fit to deploy Soldiers to the Middle Belt to stop these mindless killings? 

On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 12:46 AM, Moses Ebe Ochonu <meochonu@gmail.com> wrote:

But in Zamfara state, the killings are occuring between cattle rustlers and herders, both of whom are Fulani for the most part, the cattle rustlers sometimes being former herders and vice versa. It was only later that the crisis pitted some Fulani herders against non-Fulani communities as these communities began to take revenge indiscriminately against Fulani herders after their communities were attacked by the Fulani bandits.The president has largely solved that problem by inaugurating in the first few months of his tenure a military task force to deal with the issue in that axis extending all the way to Birnin Gwari in Kaduna State. Perhaps you need to give us the evidence of herdsmen being killed in Benue. Even Miyetti has not alleged killings in Benue; rather it claims that its members lost 1000 cattle to theft when they were migrating from Benue to Nasarawa state, and that the recent massacre was revenge for the loss of said cattle. I'm sure some herdsmen have lost their lives in the expanding collision between armed Bororo herders and farming communities across the country. However, only one group, the herdsmen, have a roving, armed militia that is killing and terrorizing people and sacking communities with impunity from Zamfara to Southern Kaduna, to Plateau, to Benue, to Enugu, to Kogi, Edo, and beyond. There is a pattern of nationwide terror for which the armed wings of Bororo herdsmen are responsible. That is a discernible pattern that should be recognized on its own terms without the forced narrative that killings are not one-sided. It does not help to construct false equalences or to manufacture claims about herdsmen killings that the herdsmen themselves have not made. The  herdsmen militia, mobile and murderous, are an existential threat to Nigeria. I hope Buhari wakes up from his nonchalance and deals with it as the national threat that it is. Jonathan was late to recognize the threat that Boko Haram posed to the nation and he paid a political price for it, not to mention the thousands of needless deaths that occurred as a result of his conspiracy-fueled tardiness. We do not help him recognize the threat when we throw out exculpatory and obfuscatory canards such as "the killings are not one-sided." A pattern of terror stalks the land, and it is traceable to one roving, murderous militia. Pointing to isolated, historically familiar, and sporadic incidents of mutual conflict between herdsmen and their sedentary hosts should not be advanced to take attention away from this national threat. That sporadic, familiar conflict has been with us for centuries and was never a problem until this strangely new group of Bororo herders decided to use brute force, backed by a well armed militia, to take grazing land from farming communities and to punish them when they would not yield.

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Jibrin Ibrahim <jibrinibrahim891@gmail.com> wrote:

In Zamfara State, a killer State, a killer squad has been killing Fulani pastoralists for the past two years and no one is talking about it. In Benue, the same thing has happened and I am told I can't say killing is done by both sides. Yes the media is heavily one-sided in its reporting and the Fulani story is not being told, and it should be. All killings are unacceptable, why can't we take this as a point of departure.

Professor Jibrin Ibrahim

Senior Fellow

Centre for Democracy and Development, Abuja

Follow me on twitter @jibrinibrahim17

On 10 January 2018 at 21:20, segun ogungbemi <seguno2013@gmail.com> wrote:

Legislative Solutions

"There are discordant laws and regulations that legislate livestock production and pastoralism at the regional, national and state levels. Some of the newly emerging laws such as the "anti-grazing" state laws appear to contradict the free movement principle enshrined in the Constitution."

I just want to comment on the above quotation. My response is that the idea of free movement is not elastic. You have freedom of movement insofar as  it does not enchroach on the right of others to personal property and protection of life. For instance,  if I invest in farming and my crops flourish and just before harvesting them a herdsman and his cows enchroach on the farm and destroy the crops,  the law does not permit the herdsman and his animals to violate my right to property. 

There is a mutual respect between one with  freedom and another with right. Each must know his limit to avoid unnessary  conflicts of interest. That is what is missing in both claims of freedom and right agents in Nigeria.

That is where National Orientation Agency and social media should try to educate the masses.   

Segun. 

On Jan 10, 2018 16:43, "Femi Segun" <soloruntoba@gmail.com> wrote:

Oga Toyin

I beg to differ. This position defeats  the pursuit of nation-building and societal harmony. We need an effective state and visionary leadership to manage the various centripetal and centrifugal forces. Saying we don't need them is an escapist answer. Damage has been done and still being done, but we cannot hands off in defeat.Many of us cried out last year  when some misguided youth gave ultimatum to the Igbos to leave the North. We must help this government to think right and act justly.

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 4:04 PM, Oluwatoyin Vincent Adepoju <toyin.adepoju@gmail.com> wrote:

The Fulani herdsmen problem is the work of a group of terrorists trying to obtain other people's land through massacre.

Please stay in your region with your cows.

We dont need them.

toyion

On 9 January 2018 at 21:50, Jibrin Ibrahim <jibrinibrahim891@gmail.com> wrote:

Please note that the killing is not one sided as is often reported in the press. Militia groups have emerged to kill herdsmen and they are having a lot of success. Ranches is very misunderstood concept and only operates in thinly populated dry lands where a lot of land can be allocated to cattle owners, thats not our situation. The issue has become very emotive and objective discussion has become difficult but we are trying to do just that.

Professor Jibrin Ibrahim

Senior Fellow

Centre for Democracy and Development, Abuja

Follow me on twitter @jibrinibrahim17

On 9 January 2018 at 14:50, Femi Segun <soloruntoba@gmail.com> wrote:

Much as one should commend the efforts of the panel members who put up this report, I hasten to say that it is very cosmetic and somehow apologetic of a certain interest-the interest of the Pastoralists. One would have expected that a panel that is made up of such experts should go as far as recommending restorative  justice for the families of thousands that have been killed by the Pastoralists. I read an article in the Punch today, where the leader of the Myetti Allah in Benue State said his group had to kill 25 human beings because 1000 cows were stolen. Has life become so cheap as to be trading human lives for cows? Ideally, reports of this  nature should  have inputs from all the parties that have been affected by the ongoing conflicts in one way or the other. Several arguments have been put out there on the imperative of having cattle ranches. Even though this was mentioned in the report, it is obvious that the preference is the continuation of the current order of moving cattle from the North to the South-with all the consequences. This preference was presented as if it is law, that cannot be challenged. In a plural society like ours, such proclivity can be interpreted to mean an expression  of superiority of one group over another. Can we claim to be a member of the  civilised world if we lack the courage to say or do  what is obtainable in other civilised societies? To what extent can a farmer from Ekiti or Umuahia be allowed to take over land by the force of arms in Sokoto or Kaduna in the name of constitutional provision of freedom of movement? In order to forestall the worsening of the violence and other social consequences that the report rightly highlighted, I will suggest that the recommendations should be rethought and redrafted to acknowledge the pain that those who have needlessly suffered loss of lives are going through and proffer solutions to alleviating such pains in form of compensations. The Government should also stop the current  parochial approach to a festering national sore by developing the courage to apprehend, try in the court of law and punish people who murder human beings  in exchange for cows. Methink there are laws that cover stealing in Nigeria. Those who are found to have stolen cows should also be tried and given just sentence. Additionally, the hard option of cattle ranches should be pursued rather than hiding under the constitution to justify the wanton destruction of lives and livelihood of farmers, across the country. This report falls short of expectations in terms of providing intellectual leadership on nation building and cohesion, especially coming from such a distinguished panel. 

Samuel

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 12:41 PM, Jibrin Ibrahim <jibrinibrahim891@gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

Pastoralist-Farmers Conflicts and the Search for Peaceful Resolution

 

Memorandum by the Nigerian Working Group on Peace Building and Governance

 

Abuja, 8^th January 2018

 

Executive Summary

Pastoralists-farmers' conflicts in Nigeria have grown, spread and intensified over the past decade and today poses a threat to national survival. Thousands of people have been killed, communities have been destroyed and so many farmers and pastoralists have lost their lives and property in an orgy of killings and destruction that is not only destroying livelihoods but also affecting national cohesion. Nigeria has about 19 million cattle much of it in the hands of pastoralists and we need to seek solutions to the problem of pastoralism while resolving the problem of insecurity that has arisen.

 

The Problem

Nigeria's population has grown from 33 million in 1950 to about 192.3 million today. This phenomenal increase of the population has put enormous pressure on land and water resources used by farmers and pastoralists. One of the outcomes of this process has been the blockage of transhumance routes and loss of grazing land to agricultural expansion and the increased southward movement of pastoralists has led to increased conflict with local communities. This is particularly the case in the Middle Belt – notably in Plateau, Kaduna, Niger, Nassarawa, Benue, Taraba, and Adamawa States. The conflicts primarily involve Fulani pastoralists and local farming communities. As violence between herdsmen and farmers has grown and developed into criminality and rural banditry, popular narratives in the form of hate speech have exacerbated the crisis.

 

Grazing Reserves As Possible Solution

It is clear that Nigeria and indeed Africa have to plan towards the transformation of pastoralism into settled forms of animal husbandry. The establishment of grazing reserves provides the opportunity for practicing a more limited form of pastoralism and is therefore a pathway towards a more settled form of animal husbandry. Nigeria has a total of 417 grazing reserves out of which only about 113 have been gazetted. Whether we support or oppose pastoralism, it is clear that at least in the short and medium term, many herds must continue to practice seasonal migration between dry and wet season grazing areas. Ultimately, there is the need for permanent settlement of pastoralists.

 

The Law, Politics and Pastoralism

One of the greatest difficulties in addressing and resolving issues surrounding pastoralism is the politicisation of legal regimes and the blockages to the enactment of or implementation of laws that can redress the key challenges posed. In 2016 for example, a bill was proposed - ''A Bill for an Act to establish Grazing Reserve in each of the states of the Federation Nigeria to improve agriculture yield from livestock farming and curb incessant conflicts between cattle farmers and crop farmers in Nigeria'' was thrown out. There is an emerging conflict between the constitutional principle on free movement of persons and goods and laws emerging in some States restricting movement. Some States have enacted laws or are processing bills to prevent open grazing on their territory. There are four initiatives so far in Benue, Ekiti, Taraba and Edo States. Could such laws be effective in prohibiting pastoralism, which is practiced by millions of Nigerians?

 

Developing a Comprehensive Policy Framework

A new policy framework on the farmers-pastoralists crisis should be developed that is both comprehensive and mutually beneficial to both groups. An inter-ministerial committee should be constituted with experts and stakeholder membership to draw up the framework. There must be a consultative process that listens to the concerns of all stakeholders in developing the new framework so that the outcome would have national ownership. Pastoralism is not sustainable in Nigeria over the long term due to high population growth rate, expansion of farming and loss of pasture and cattle routes. At the same time, pastoralism cannot end or be prohibited in the short term, as there are strong cultural and political economy reasons for its existence. The new policy should develop a plan for a transitional period during which new systems would be put in place. The framework should map out the duration, strategy and timelines for the transition plan. Finally, a comprehensive approach to address the growing crisis associated with violence affecting pastoralism and farmers in Nigeria is necessary.

Introduction

Pastoralists-farmers' conflicts in Nigeria have grown, spread and intensified over the past decade and today poses a threat to national survival. Thousands of people have been killed, communities have been destroyed and so many farmers and pastoralists have lost their lives and property in an orgy of killings and destruction that is not only destroying livelihoods but also affecting national cohesion. Each day, we witness more reprisal killings that are simply making the possibilities of peaceful resolution more difficult. Rural banditry is becoming the norm in the Nigerian hinterland and has been transformed into a vicious criminal activity. The result is that the scale of loss of both herds and human life has been escalating and the victims are on all sides – subsistence farmers, commercial farmers and pastoralists. Nonetheless, we write this memo to say we cannot give up to hate and destruction, let's pause, reflect and seek a way out of the crisis.

 

Nigeria has a large pastoral population the logic of whose livelihood is often misunderstood. What is better understood is the culture of farming, which is rooted in a specific location and has activities that take place regularly. The assumption that pastoralism is in itself an irrational production system is far from the truth. Pastoralism is the main livestock production system in much of Africa where pastoralists live in semi arid zones. It is a historically developed strategy to cope with the uncertainties associated with climate change, build up of parasites and other related challenges. It is above all an efficient way to produce livestock at relatively low prices through the use of non-commercial feeding stock. Historically, pastoralists have been able to meet the meat demand in West Africa with a relatively high level of efficiency without government subsidy for generations.

Different methods through the use of farm residue and open range grazing has allowed this trend to flourish. Nigeria has a landmass of 98.3 million hectares, 82 million hectares of arable land of which about 34 million hectares are currently under cultivation. In crop farming, human beings only directly utilize about a quarter of the total biomass. The other three quarters is in the form of crop residue and low quality crop, which is not directly useful to people. It is this residue that cattle (ruminants) convert into meat and milk. In addition to this, cattle also utilize grasses on fallow lands, non-arable poor quality lands, open ranges and fadama in the same manner. Pastoralists move their animals to these locations to access these opportunities. This system of production is breaking down today as violent conflicts between pastoralists and farmers have arisen and created a major national crisis.

The Problem

Nigeria's population has grown from 33 million in 1950 to about 192.3 million today. The United Nations recently projected more growth in terms of population in the coming years, 364 million in 2030 and 480 million in 2050 respectively. This phenomenal increase of the population has put enormous pressure on land and water resources used by farmers and pastoralists. Specifically, the demographic increase has led to an expansion in cultivated farmland and a reduction in available grazing land for pastoralists that is characterised by competition over dwindling resources. In the far north, the impact of desertification as well as the crisis of energy, which has resulted in deforestation, coupled with climatic uncertainty and lower rainfall have made it more difficult to sustain increasing populations, pushing many farmers and pastoralists with livestock southwards. This has happened gradually over a period of decades – with an apparent increase over the past decade – and has added to pressure on land and water in central and southern Nigeria.

 

One of the outcomes of this process has been the blockage of transhumance routes and loss of grazing land to agricultural expansion and the increased southward movement of pastoralists has led to increased conflict with local communities. This is particularly the case in the Middle Belt – notably in Plateau, Kaduna, Niger, Nassarawa, Benue, Taraba, and Adamawa States. The conflicts often have localised dynamics, but primarily involve Fulani pastoralists and local farming communities.

 

The Nigerian state has a relatively weak rural presence and has neglected the agrarian sector since the 1970s, when oil revenues began to dominate the economy. There have been few improvements in agricultural productivity and livestock production as a result of the dependence on oil revenues, which have not been reinvested in productive economic activities. State response in the context of the lingering conflicts between farmers and pastoralists has been both ad hoc and reactive, with no concrete and sustainable strategies for conflict management and peace building beyond the deployment of security or establishment of commissions of inquiries. One of the key pathways here is for the state to be more proactive in its responses by putting in place mechanisms that are institutionalised and sustainable both at the local and state levels.

 

As violence between herdsmen and farmers has grown and developed into criminality and rural banditry, popular narratives creating meaning, context and (mis) understandings have been emerging. The narratives emerging on rural banditry in the media and in popular discourse are becoming part of the drivers for expanding conflicts in the country. The protagonists in this saga are often presented as being nomadic Fulani cattle herders, who are mostly Muslims, and sedentary farmer communities of several other ethnic extractions, who are often, but not always non-Muslims. These two distinct groups are usually depicted as perpetrators and victims, respectively. Perspectives of the social, religious and ethnic characteristics of these rural communities are framed into expansive essentialist discourses that actively breed and sustain suspicion and distrust. The result is negative stereotyping between "the one" and "the other" that lead further to ethnic and religious bigotry which fuels the hate process, culminating in further chains of attacks and counter or revenge attacks being exchanged between these different groups. Nigeria urgently needs to find pathways to get out of the crisis and one approach may be the development of grazing reserves for pastoralists.

 

Grazing Reserves As Possible Solution

It is clear that Nigeria and indeed Africa have to plan towards the transformation of pastoralism into settled forms of animal husbandry. The establishment of grazing reserves provides the opportunity for practicing a more limited form of pastoralism and is therefore a pathway towards a more settled form of animal husbandry. Grazing reserves are areas of land demarcated, set aside and reserved for exclusive or semi-exclusive use by pastoralists. Currently, Nigeria has a total of 417 grazing reserves all over the country, out of which only about 113 have been gazetted. There are many problems facing the implementation of the provisions of the 1965 Grazing Reserve Law and the management of the established grazing reserves. First, most of the grazing reserves were established by the then Northern Regional Government. Since the 1970's subsequent military and civilian governments have in effect abandoned the policy of establishing and developing grazing reserves. Secondly, State governments have not been diligent in sustaining previous policies and have not surveyed and gazetted most of the designated grazing reserves. Indeed, only 113 (about 27%) of the 417 proposed grazing reserves have been gazetted.

 

Whether we support or oppose pastoralism, it is clear that at least in the short and medium term, many herds must continue to practice seasonal migration between dry and wet season grazing areas, incorporating past harvest grazing farmland in the highly developed and ecologically sound pattern of transhumance evolved by the pastoralist over the centuries. This is an important point to make at this point when many political actors think it is possible to simply and abruptly ban open grazing. There is indeed, the need for permanent settlement of pastoralists both in the far north and semi humid zone of the middle belt. It is important to focus on the development of grazing reserves as part of the solution.

 

The Law, Politics and Pastoralism

One of the greatest difficulties in addressing and resolving issues surrounding pastoralism is the politicisation of legal regimes and the blockages to the enactment of or implementation of laws that can redress the key challenges posed. In 2016 for example, a bill was proposed - ''A Bill for an Act to establish Grazing Reserve in each of the states of the Federation Nigeria to improve agriculture yield from livestock farming and curb incessant conflicts between cattle farmers and crop farmers in Nigeria.'' The National Assembly on the basis that the Bill appeared to be seeking to favour one particular profession carried out by mainly one ethnic group, the Fulani, threw it out. The problem is that if we cannot have grazing reserves and if pastoralists cannot move, how do we expect the 19 million cattle grazing in the country to survive and how do we protect our Constitutional principle of free movement.

 

Free Movement and Restrictions to Transhumance

There is an emerging conflict between the constitutional principle on free movement of persons and goods and laws emerging in some States restricting movement. In Section 41(1) of the Nigerian Constitution, it is stated that:

 

''Every citizen of Nigeria is entitled to move freely throughout Nigeria and to reside in any part thereof, and no citizen of Nigeria shall be expelled from Nigeria or refused entry thereby or exit therefrom.''

 

Some States have enacted laws or are processing bills to prevent open grazing on their territory. There are four initiatives so far:

 

1.   Ekiti state: Prohibition of Cattle and Other Ruminants Grazing in Ekiti, 2016.

2.   Taraba state: Anti-Open Grazing Prohibition and Ranches Establishment Bill 2017. 'A bill for a law to prohibit open rearing and grazing of livestock and provide for the establishment of ranches and the Taraba State livestock and ranches administration and control committee and for others connected thereto 2017'.

3.   Edo State Bill: A Bill for A Law to Establish the Edo State Control of Nomadic Cattle Rearing/Grazing Law and for Other Purposes.

4.   Benue State Law: A Law to Prohibit Open Rearing and Grazing of Livestock and Provide for the Establishment of Ranches and Livestock Administration, Regulation and Control and for Other Matters Connected Therewith, 2017.

It is worthwhile posing the question whether laws can be effective in prohibiting pastoralism, which is practiced by millions of Nigerians. As some of the laws have already been passed, they would have to be tested in court. It is important to stress however that the Constitution guarantees free movement of persons and goods across Nigeria and no State government can withdraw constitutionally entrenched rights. Secondly, following a legislation by the Ogun State Government and the Supreme Court Judgment on the matter cited as "A.G. OGUN STATE V. ALHAJA AYINKE ABERUAGBA (1985) 1 NWLR PG. 395" States were barred from interfering with inter-state commerce and the free movement of goods and services. At that time, Ogun State had tried to control and tax goods entering from other States and the Supreme Court ruled that it would be chaotic if States enacted any laws they please restricting movement of goods and services in the Federation. It was this judgment that led to the introduction of value added tax (VAT) as a State tax that is determined at the national level and collected by the Federal Government, which takes an administrative fee and redistributes the proceeds back to the States. The key issue however is that pastoralism has developed into a national crisis that is leading to increased violence so a legal approach alone cannot resolve the issue. It is therefore important to negotiate a national policy framework that would protect the interests of both farmers and herders. The Federal Government should take the initiative of negotiating a consensual policy framework that would address the issues.

 

Developing a Comprehensive Policy Framework

Livestock production in Nigeria is in existential crisis and the country lacks a cohesive and comprehensive policy framework for livestock development and regulation in Nigeria. The defunct Northern Grazing Reserve Law has not been updated, the Land Use Act of 1978 is dysfunctional, emerging state grazing reserve laws, the ECOWAS Transhumance Protocol and other related international instruments have to be updated and streamlined.

Recommendation

Piecemeal of sectorial approach to livestock development will not suffice. A new policy framework should be developed that is both comprehensive and must be mutually beneficial to pastoralists and farmers. Any policy that does not take into consideration the welfare of both sides will most likely fail or meet resistance by either side. An inter-ministerial committee should be constituted with experts and stakeholder membership to draw up the framework. There must be a consultative process that listens to the concerns of all stakeholders in developing the new framework so that the outcome would have national ownership.

 

The Future of Pastoralism and Animal Husbandry

Pastoralism is not sustainable in Nigeria over the long term due to high population growth rate, expansion of farming and loss of pasture and cattle routes. At the same time, pastoralism cannot end of be prohibited in the short term as there are strong cultural and political economy reasons for its existence. It is important therefore to develop a plan for a transitional period during which new systems would be put in place.

Recommendations

Experts should be assembled to map out the duration, strategy and timelines for the transition plan. As there is no miracle model for solving the problems, the plan should simultaneously pursue a number of models including:

i.      Ranching can be pursued as one of the possible models in areas with lower population densities in the North East (Sambisa Game Reserve in Borno State) and North West (Gidan Jaja Grazing Reserve in Zamfara State);

ii.    Semi-intensive systems of animal husbandry should be pursued accompanied with requisite investment in infrastructure, training, extension, marketing and animal health service delivery in conjuncture with the private sector;

iii.   The traditional form of pastoralism should continue for a period to be agreed upon with some improvements (in the form of coordinated mobility between wet and dry season grazing areas and effective management of farmers and pastoralists relations);

iv.  Use of and development of grazing reserves to target pastoralists with large stocks where skills for pasture production, large milk production, etc can be promoted.

v.    Development of integrated crop-livestock systems with farmers and pastoralists being encouraged to keep some animals in their farms.

vi.  In order to meet the feeding needs of herds, alternative low water and drought resistant grasses should be produced, in response to the impact of desertification on fodder production.

 

Modernisation of Livestock

Nigeria has one of the lowest productivity levels of livestock in the world. It is for this reason that Nigeria imports very large quantities of milk, fish and chicken. The Nigerian herd requires sustained efforts at quality development based on a modernisation strategy that would transform the industry and move the country towards the objective of self-reliance.

Recommendations

The programme for the country's transition to modern forms of animal husbandry must be accelerated and funded. The national stock would require rapid improvement and modernisation to meet market demands for meat, milk, hides and other products from the industry:

i.               Commercial ranches should be established in some of the sparsely populated zones in the North East and North West;

ii.             The business community should be encouraged through policy measures to invest in the establishment of modern dairy farms;

iii.            Sensitisation programmes should be undertaken on the values of livestock improvem

--

Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Does the evidence support the notion that this scourge emanates from a group without a central command structure across the nation, some mysteriously appearing group that has no political affiliation with their ethnic kin in the corridors of power?

It does not.

This scourge is systematic and very well funded.

The claim of a random emergence cant be sustained.

toyin

On 11 January 2018 at 17:42, Mobolaji Aluko <alukome@gmail.com> wrote:

Jibrin, 

Buhari."s administration is characterized by inertia:  inertia in changing ancien regime officials, in choosing ministers and ambassadors, in subsidy removal, in corrupt officers removal, in reshuffling cabinet, in addressing head on these issues of pastoral, political and cult-related killings and kidnappings.  Some official messaging has been amateurish - witness the recent dead people appointments.   

Buhari is now healthy, so old excuses need not apply. There needs to be much greater proactively onsmy fronts  and forward looking-Ness, not rear mirror viewing. 

The fact of the matter is that all activities in Nigeria have ethnic, political, religious, economic, revolutionary and criminal dimensions.  The question in each particular case is the weight given to each factor, and whether there is broad and even official approval by the class that they claim to represent.  

Bolaji Aluko 

On Thursday, January 11, 2018, Jibrin Ibrahim <jibrinibrahim891@gmail.com> wrote:

Bolaji

You are absolutely right that the ethnic labels are neither accurate nor a description of what is going on. There is new research by CERDDERT in Zaria that is drawing attention to the underlying reality, the emergence of numerous well armed criminal gangs some ethnic, others multiethnic that are the key actors in the killings and both farming and pastoralists are victims. These criminal groups are straddling between cattle rustling and kidnapping in addition to terrorising communities and we should look at some of these dynamics. I have asked A. S, Mohammed to prepare a summary of their findings which I will distribute.

Moses, Bororo has been the term used for Fulani pastoralists all along and what is new is the phenomenon of these well armed criminal gangs.

Professor Jibrin Ibrahim

Senior Fellow

Centre for Democracy and Development, Abuja

Follow me on twitter @jibrinibrahim17

On 11 January 2018 at 16:36, Moses Ebe Ochonu <meochonu@gmail.com> wrote:

Oga Falola,

You have raised very important appendices to this conversation. While we wait for Jibo's response, let me chime in with my thoughts.

There is indeed a fear of the Fulani, which is both political and existential. This has always been part of Nigeria's tripodal politics of mutual ethnic suspicions. The narrative of a domineering Fulani hegemony has always been a trope of Southern Nigerian and Middle Belt political discourse. Some of the suspicion is real and some of it is grounded in fiction and unfounded fear. I suspect that some of may be be strategic. There is also a rather visceral hostility and suspicion of the Fulani in some quarters. This is largely a politically-driven antipathy. 

There is however genuine outrage at the menace of armed herdsmen militias. Unfortunately, in the current climate, it is difficult to tell the former from the latter as they have overlapped and seeped into each other. That is one of the negative consequences of the incessant, largely ignored killings by these militia. Genuine angst agains the killings have sometimes meshed with a more primordial and political distrust of herdsmen and their non-nomadic Fulani kinsmen. It is quite unfortunate.

It is also unfortunate but hardly surprising that the conversation has morphed into a familiar and rather cliched anti-Fulani rhetoric and the promotion of certain political pathologies about the Fulani as hegemonic and domineering. This is one of the reasons that some of us had been restrained from commenting. If you express outrage at the killings, those who harbor an ethnic or political animus against the Fulani as an ethnic group could latch onto what you say to further their agenda. But you cannot keep quiet when mass murders are being committed on a vast scale.

For starters, it is important to point out that not all Fulani are herdsmen or pastoralists. In fact I would say that MOST Fulani, at least in Nigeria, are not nomadic herdsmen. I attended secondary school in Yola, Adamawa State and it doesn't get more Fulani that Yola. Yet most Fulani in Yola and even in the larger Adamawa State are not nomadic herders. Most of them are actually sedentary farmers and traders and settled herders--or ranchers in the prevailing lingo. So, the ethnicization of this conversation is misleading, and the extension of the culpability of the armed herdsmen killers to all Fulani is wrong.

Even among Fulani herdsmen, a fine-grained distinction needs to be made. We all grew up with nomadic Fulani herders in our communities and consumed their dairy products, which we obtained sometimes by battering grains and other items that they needed. They were largely peaceful. They respected the host communities. Whenever their cattle transgressed in farmlands, they obeyed local traditional authorities and paid compensation. When they felt aggrieved by members of host communities, they approached the local authorities for redress. This still happens with some nomadic herders.

What has changed?

What has changed is that, there is a new group (a sub-group, if you will) of herders who have broken this unwritten rule governing relations between herders and farmers. They no longer respect local constituted authorities and have no respect for farmers or their crops in host communities. They are also armed and ready to use these arms to enforce their will and desires on host communities and to kill and sack communities if and when challenged. Needless to say that this small group of ultra-aggressive and violent herdsmen that many now call the Bororo has made life difficult for the nomadic and semi-nomadic herdsmen that many communities across the country have been familiar with for decades if not centuries. Through their mass murders and other heinous acts, they have given a bad name to all herders and helped create a negative stereotype of herders as mass murderers, rapists, and terrorists. It is this stereotype that is now being mobilized mischievously by some people to reinforce previously existing political suspicions of the Fulani ethnic group as a whole.

I was discussing with a member of this list from Kwara state who told me that in his hometow, people are now scared to go to farms after recent incidents of violence and killings of farmers by armed herdsmen. His story is quite emblematic of what is going on across the country. His hometown, a Muslim kingdom with an emir, has, for centuries, welcomed and hosted nomadic Fulani groups, trading with them, interacting with them, and in some cases even intermarrying with them. So deep and historical are these relations that some of the Fulani have now actually settled with their cattle on the outskirts of the community and for all practical purposes have become a part of its fabric. Recently, however, this picture was shattered when a new group of nomadic Fulani herdsmen arrived in the area armed with sophisticated weapons and, unlike previous groups nomads, began aggressively and recklessly encroaching on farms and killing local farmers who challenged them. The most telling aspect of this story is that these armed nomadic killers have not spared the settled and semi-settled Fulani nomadic communities in the area. These new, aggressive and armed nomads have killed local nomads and sacked Fulani settlements in the area as well, sending shockwaves through the entire community, with both Fulani and non-Fulani running for their lives. When my friend asked his people who these new Fulani nomads are, he was told that both his people and the older, largely peaceful Fulani communities in the area call the new, violent nomads Bororo, clearly a term to differentiate them from the other Fulani nomadic groups that have been coexisting with the people of the area for centuries.

My point in telling this story is to yet again underscore the unhelpfulness of generalization and to reinforce the distinctions that must be made among the Fulani and also among the pastoral herdsmen as a way of isolating and defining the identity and character of the mass killers and terrorists who pose a clear threat to the nation.

The danger of ethnicization and generalization is that we will lose allies among the sedentary Fulani and among Fulani intellectuals and aristocrats, who share ethnic affinity with both groups of herdsmen and would resist a quest for solutions that unfairly castigates and stereotypes the Fulani as an ethnic group. The other downside of course is that such an approach is unfair to the historical Fulani nomadic groups whose descendants continue to desire peaceful coexistence with host communities and have at times, as the case I narrated shows, become victims of the killer herdsmen. This victimhood is not just in having their cattle rustled or in being killed by their armed and violent Fulani nomadic kinsmen. It is also in the fact that, unfortunately, the murderous activities of the armed herdsmen militia have destroyed the trust between host communities and historical, largely peaceful Fulani nomadic and semi-nomadic groups. 

This is precisely the reason why, if I were Fulani, whether I'm a nomad or not, I would support the effort to isolate the Bororo mass murderous and deal decisively with them. I would not want my reputation and ethnicity sullied and subjected further to the kind of castigation, negative stereotyping, and suspicions that you outlined above in your questions to Jibrin.

On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 9:26 AM, Mobolaji Aluko <alukome@gmail.com> wrote:

Jibrin:

This question is really what I cannot understand.  Why put an ethnic label on murderers _ Fulani - , or even a trade label on them - herdsmen - when not only do I  know many Fulani who are neither herdsmen or murderers, but many herdsmen who are also not Fulani or murderers! 

By labeling them constantly as "Fulani herdsmen", you clearly cause some natural defence _ by Fulani individuals, or by herdsmen, or both (MAKH)  - of otherwise indefensible and outrage conduct. 

Unfortunately,   in Nigeria's toxic political environment, these particular dog whistle has become a latter day characterization of the armed wing of the feared "Hausa Fulani hegemony" which many of us in the South and Middle Beltran railed against in earlier decades.  That armed wing used to be the Military... The civilian ogre is now MAKH nationwide,  not even BH, which is confined to the NE.   

That Buhari is now President - that famed defender of yore of Fulani herdsmen before Oyo Governor Lamidi Adesina - - appears maddening to a core group of Nigerians.  His herdsmen mentality could not be used to prevent him in 2015... Should we not try again in 2019, beginning now?  Is the politicization of criminality - which led to the escalation of BH - once again rearing its ugly head through official inertia? 

Honestly, we need new thinking and language.  We must drop the etnicizatiin of criminality - whether pastoral-related killings, or cult- or politics related kidnappings, etc _ so that we undercut all their support oxygen. When criminals are caught and punished, we must ensure that no one begins to say "Oh, it us because they are Fulani, or Yoruba or Igbo, etc" because such characterizations weaken the resolve to go after the crime. 

And there you have it. 

Bolaji Aluko 

On Thursday, January 11, 2018, Jibrin Ibrahim <jibrinibrahim891@gmail.com> wrote:

What is happening to our intellectuals, how can a whole ethnic group be categorised as murderers. 

Professor Jibrin Ibrahim

Senior Fellow

Centre for Democracy and Development, Abuja

Follow me on twitter @jibrinibrahim17

On 11 January 2018 at 10:18, Femi Segun <soloruntoba@gmail.com> wrote:

Added to this spurious attempt to defend the indefensible is the recommendation in the panel report that grazing reserves should be carved out, more or less compulsorily. That option should not and cannot be an imposition, except of course we are saying, the murderers have more rights than the people that they have been killing. As Wole Soyinka said in his piece in the Punch of yesterday, the claim by the Inspector General of Police that the killing  was a product of  communal clashes, bespeaks shameful display of ignorance by a law enforcement officer of his rank. Communal clashes occur among neighbors, not between people who leave far apart.  Whether or not PMB is contesting in 2019, he needs to drop his toga of an ethnically and religiously biased posturing. Why on earth will he declare Operation Python and Operation Dance in the Southeast and South South without deeming fit to deploy Soldiers to the Middle Belt to stop these mindless killings? 

On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 12:46 AM, Moses Ebe Ochonu <meochonu@gmail.com> wrote:

But in Zamfara state, the killings are occuring between cattle rustlers and herders, both of whom are Fulani for the most part, the cattle rustlers sometimes being former herders and vice versa. It was only later that the crisis pitted some Fulani herders against non-Fulani communities as these communities began to take revenge indiscriminately against Fulani herders after their communities were attacked by the Fulani bandits.The president has largely solved that problem by inaugurating in the first few months of his tenure a military task force to deal with the issue in that axis extending all the way to Birnin Gwari in Kaduna State. Perhaps you need to give us the evidence of herdsmen being killed in Benue. Even Miyetti has not alleged killings in Benue; rather it claims that its members lost 1000 cattle to theft when they were migrating from Benue to Nasarawa state, and that the recent massacre was revenge for the loss of said cattle. I'm sure some herdsmen have lost their lives in the expanding collision between armed Bororo herders and farming communities across the country. However, only one group, the herdsmen, have a roving, armed militia that is killing and terrorizing people and sacking communities with impunity from Zamfara to Southern Kaduna, to Plateau, to Benue, to Enugu, to Kogi, Edo, and beyond. There is a pattern of nationwide terror for which the armed wings of Bororo herdsmen are responsible. That is a discernible pattern that should be recognized on its own terms without the forced narrative that killings are not one-sided. It does not help to construct false equalences or to manufacture claims about herdsmen killings that the herdsmen themselves have not made. The  herdsmen militia, mobile and murderous, are an existential threat to Nigeria. I hope Buhari wakes up from his nonchalance and deals with it as the national threat that it is. Jonathan was late to recognize the threat that Boko Haram posed to the nation and he paid a political price for it, not to mention the thousands of needless deaths that occurred as a result of his conspiracy-fueled tardiness. We do not help him recognize the threat when we throw out exculpatory and obfuscatory canards such as "the killings are not one-sided." A pattern of terror stalks the land, and it is traceable to one roving, murderous militia. Pointing to isolated, historically familiar, and sporadic incidents of mutual conflict between herdsmen and their sedentary hosts should not be advanced to take attention away from this national threat. That sporadic, familiar conflict has been with us for centuries and was never a problem until this strangely new group of Bororo herders decided to use brute force, backed by a well armed militia, to take grazing land from farming communities and to punish them when they would not yield.

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Jibrin Ibrahim <jibrinibrahim891@gmail.com> wrote:

In Zamfara State, a killer State, a killer squad has been killing Fulani pastoralists for the past two years and no one is talking about it. In Benue, the same thing has happened and I am told I can't say killing is done by both sides. Yes the media is heavily one-sided in its reporting and the Fulani story is not being told, and it should be. All killings are unacceptable, why can't we take this as a point of departure.

Professor Jibrin Ibrahim

Senior Fellow

Centre for Democracy and Development, Abuja

Follow me on twitter @jibrinibrahim17

On 10 January 2018 at 21:20, segun ogungbemi <seguno2013@gmail.com> wrote:

Legislative Solutions

"There are discordant laws and regulations that legislate livestock production and pastoralism at the regional, national and state levels. Some of the newly emerging laws such as the "anti-grazing" state laws appear to contradict the free movement principle enshrined in the Constitution."

I just want to comment on the above quotation. My response is that the idea of free movement is not elastic. You have freedom of movement insofar as  it does not enchroach on the right of others to personal property and protection of life. For instance,  if I invest in farming and my crops flourish and just before harvesting them a herdsman and his cows enchroach on the farm and destroy the crops,  the law does not permit the herdsman and his animals to violate my right to property. 

There is a mutual respect between one with  freedom and another with right. Each must know his limit to avoid unnessary  conflicts of interest. That is what is missing in both claims of freedom and right agents in Nigeria.

That is where National Orientation Agency and social media should try to educate the masses.   

Segun. 

On Jan 10, 2018 16:43, "Femi Segun" <soloruntoba@gmail.com> wrote:

Oga Toyin

I beg to differ. This position defeats  the pursuit of nation-building and societal harmony. We need an effective state and visionary leadership to manage the various centripetal and centrifugal forces. Saying we don't need them is an escapist answer. Damage has been done and still being done, but we cannot hands off in defeat.Many of us cried out last year  when some misguided youth gave ultimatum to the Igbos to leave the North. We must help this government to think right and act justly.

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 4:04 PM, Oluwatoyin Vincent Adepoju <toyin.adepoju@gmail.com> wrote:

The Fulani herdsmen problem is the work of a group of terrorists trying to obtain other people's land through massacre.

Please stay in your region with your cows.

We dont need them.

toyion

On 9 January 2018 at 21:50, Jibrin Ibrahim <jibrinibrahim891@gmail.com> wrote:

Please note that the killing is not one sided as is often reported in the press. Militia groups have emerged to kill herdsmen and they are having a lot of success. Ranches is very misunderstood concept and only operates in thinly populated dry lands where a lot of land can be allocated to cattle owners, thats not our situation. The issue has become very emotive and objective discussion has become difficult but we are trying to do just that.

Professor Jibrin Ibrahim

Senior Fellow

Centre for Democracy and Development, Abuja

Follow me on twitter @jibrinibrahim17

On 9 January 2018 at 14:50, Femi Segun <soloruntoba@gmail.com> wrote:

Much as one should commend the efforts of the panel members who put up this report, I hasten to say that it is very cosmetic and somehow apologetic of a certain interest-the interest of the Pastoralists. One would have expected that a panel that is made up of such experts should go as far as recommending restorative  justice for the families of thousands that have been killed by the Pastoralists. I read an article in the Punch today, where the leader of the Myetti Allah in Benue State said his group had to kill 25 human beings because 1000 cows were stolen. Has life become so cheap as to be trading human lives for cows? Ideally, reports of this  nature should  have inputs from all the parties that have been affected by the ongoing conflicts in one way or the other. Several arguments have been put out there on the imperative of having cattle ranches. Even though this was mentioned in the report, it is obvious that the preference is the continuation of the current order of moving cattle from the North to the South-with all the consequences. This preference was presented as if it is law, that cannot be challenged. In a plural society like ours, such proclivity can be interpreted to mean an expression  of superiority of one group over another. Can we claim to be a member of the  civilised world if we lack the courage to say or do  what is obtainable in other civilised societies? To what extent can a farmer from Ekiti or Umuahia be allowed to take over land by the force of arms in Sokoto or Kaduna in the name of constitutional provision of freedom of movement? In order to forestall the worsening of the violence and other social consequences that the report rightly highlighted, I will suggest that the recommendations should be rethought and redrafted to acknowledge the pain that those who have needlessly suffered loss of lives are going through and proffer solutions to alleviating such pains in form of compensations. The Government should also stop the current  parochial approach to a festering national sore by developing the courage to apprehend, try in the court of law and punish people who murder human beings  in exchange for cows. Methink there are laws that cover stealing in Nigeria. Those who are found to have stolen cows should also be tried and given just sentence. Additionally, the hard option of cattle ranches should be pursued rather than hiding under the constitution to justify the wanton destruction of lives and livelihood of farmers, across the country. This report falls short of expectations in terms of providing intellectual leadership on nation building and cohesion, especially coming from such a distinguished panel. 

Samuel

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 12:41 PM, Jibrin Ibrahim <jibrinibrahim891@gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

Pastoralist-Farmers Conflicts and the Search for Peaceful Resolution

 

Memorandum by the Nigerian Working Group on Peace Building and Governance

 

Abuja, 8^th January 2018

 

Executive Summary

Pastoralists-farmers' conflicts in Nigeria have grown, spread and intensified over the past decade and today poses a threat to national survival. Thousands of people have been killed, communities have been destroyed and so many farmers and pastoralists have lost their lives and property in an orgy of killings and destruction that is not only destroying livelihoods but also affecting national cohesion. Nigeria has about 19 million cattle much of it in the hands of pastoralists and we need to seek solutions to the problem of pastoralism while resolving the problem of insecurity that has arisen.

 

The Problem

Nigeria's population has grown from 33 million in 1950 to about 192.3 million today. This phenomenal increase of the population has put enormous pressure on land and water resources used by farmers and pastoralists. One of the outcomes of this process has been the blockage of transhumance routes and loss of grazing land to agricultural expansion and the increased southward movement of pastoralists has led to increased conflict with local communities. This is particularly the case in the Middle Belt – notably in Plateau, Kaduna, Niger, Nassarawa, Benue, Taraba, and Adamawa States. The conflicts primarily involve Fulani pastoralists and local farming communities. As violence between herdsmen and farmers has grown and developed into criminality and rural banditry, popular narratives in the form of hate speech have exacerbated the crisis.

 

Grazing Reserves As Possible Solution

It is clear that Nigeria and indeed Africa have to plan towards the transformation of pastoralism into settled forms of animal husbandry. The establishment of grazing reserves provides the opportunity for practicing a more limited form of pastoralism and is therefore a pathway towards a more settled form of animal husbandry. Nigeria has a total of 417 grazing reserves out of which only about 113 have been gazetted. Whether we support or oppose pastoralism, it is clear that at least in the short and medium term, many herds must continue to practice seasonal migration between dry and wet season grazing areas. Ultimately, there is the need for permanent settlement of pastoralists.

 

The Law, Politics and Pastoralism

One of the greatest difficulties in addressing and resolving issues surrounding pastoralism is the politicisation of legal regimes and the blockages to the enactment of or implementation of laws that can redress the key challenges posed. In 2016 for example, a bill was proposed - ''A Bill for an Act to establish Grazing Reserve in each of the states of the Federation Nigeria to improve agriculture yield from livestock farming and curb incessant conflicts between cattle farmers and crop farmers in Nigeria'' was thrown out. There is an emerging conflict between the constitutional principle on free movement of persons and goods and laws emerging in some States restricting movement. Some States have enacted laws or are processing bills to prevent open grazing on their territory. There are four initiatives so far in Benue, Ekiti, Taraba and Edo States. Could such laws be effective in prohibiting pastoralism, which is practiced by millions of Nigerians?

 

Developing a Comprehensive Policy Framework

A new policy framework on the farmers-pastoralists crisis should be developed that is both comprehensive and mutually beneficial to both groups. An inter-ministerial committee should be constituted with experts and stakeholder membership to draw up the framework. There must be a consultative process that listens to the concerns of all stakeholders in developing the new framework so that the outcome would have national ownership. Pastoralism is not sustainable in Nigeria over the long term due to high population growth rate, expansion of farming and loss of pasture and cattle routes. At the same time, pastoralism cannot end or be prohibited in the short term, as there are strong cultural and political economy reasons for its existence. The new policy should develop a plan for a transitional period during which new systems would be put in place. The framework should map out the duration, strategy and timelines for the transition plan. Finally, a comprehensive approach to address the growing crisis associated with violence affecting pastoralism and farmers in Nigeria is necessary.

Introduction

Pastoralists-farmers' conflicts in Nigeria have grown, spread and intensified over the past decade and today poses a threat to national survival. Thousands of people have been killed, communities have been destroyed and so many farmers and pastoralists have lost their lives and property in an orgy of killings and destruction that is not only destroying livelihoods but also affecting national cohesion. Each day, we witness more reprisal killings that are simply making the possibilities of peaceful resolution more difficult. Rural banditry is becoming the norm in the Nigerian hinterland and has been transformed into a vicious criminal activity. The result is that the scale of loss of both herds and human life has been escalating and the victims are on all sides – subsistence farmers, commercial farmers and pastoralists. Nonetheless, we write this memo to say we cannot give up to hate and destruction, let's pause, reflect and seek a way out of the crisis.

 

Nigeria has a large pastoral population the logic of whose livelihood is often misunderstood. What is better understood is the culture of farming, which is rooted in a specific location and has activities that take place regularly. The assumption that pastoralism is in itself an irrational production system is far from the truth. Pastoralism is the main livestock production system in much of Africa where pastoralists live in semi arid zones. It is a historically developed strategy to cope with the uncertainties associated with climate change, build up of parasites and other related challenges. It is above all an efficient way to produce livestock at relatively low prices through the use of non-commercial feeding stock. Historically, pastoralists have been able to meet the meat demand in West Africa with a relatively high level of efficiency without government subsidy for generations.

Different methods through the use of farm residue and open range grazing has allowed this trend to flourish. Nigeria has a landmass of 98.3 million hectares, 82 million hectares of arable land of which about 34 million hectares are currently under cultivation. In crop farming, human beings only directly utilize about a quarter of the total biomass. The other three quarters is in the form of crop residue and low quality crop, which is not directly useful to people. It is this residue that cattle (ruminants) convert into meat and milk. In addition to this, cattle also utilize grasses on fallow lands, non-arable poor quality lands, open ranges and fadama in the same manner. Pastoralists move their animals to these locations to access these opportunities. This system of production is breaking down today as violent conflicts between pastoralists and farmers have arisen and created a major national crisis.

The Problem

Nigeria's population has grown from 33 million in 1950 to about 192.3 million today. The United Nations recently projected more growth in terms of population in the coming years, 364 million in 2030 and 480 million in 2050 respectively. This phenomenal increase of the population has put enormous pressure on land and water resources used by farmers and pastoralists. Specifically, the demographic increase has led to an expansion in cultivated farmland and a reduction in available grazing land for pastoralists that is characterised by competition over dwindling resources. In the far north, the impact of desertification as well as the crisis of energy, which has resulted in deforestation, coupled with climatic uncertainty and lower rainfall have made it more difficult to sustain increasing populations, pushing many farmers and pastoralists with livestock southwards. This has happened gradually over a period of decades – with an apparent increase over the past decade – and has added to pressure on land and water in central and southern Nigeria.

 

One of the outcomes of this process has been the blockage of transhumance routes and loss of grazing land to agricultural expansion and the increased southward movement of pastoralists has led to increased conflict with local communities. This is particularly the case in the Middle Belt – notably in Plateau, Kaduna, Niger, Nassarawa, Benue, Taraba, and Adamawa States. The conflicts often have localised dynamics, but primarily involve Fulani pastoralists and local farming communities.

 

The Nigerian state has a relatively weak rural presence and has neglected the agrarian sector since the 1970s, when oil revenues began to dominate the economy. There have been few improvements in agricultural productivity and livestock production as a result of the dependence on oil revenues, which have not been reinvested in productive economic activities. State response in the context of the lingering conflicts between farmers and pastoralists has been both ad hoc and reactive, with no concrete and sustainable strategies for conflict management and peace building beyond the deployment of security or establishment of commissions of inquiries. One of the key pathways here is for the state to be more proactive in its responses by putting in place mechanisms that are institutionalised and sustainable both at the local and state levels.

 

As violence between herdsmen and farmers has grown and developed into criminality and rural banditry, popular narratives creating meaning, context and (mis) understandings have been emerging. The narratives emerging on rural banditry in the media and in popular discourse are becoming part of the drivers for expanding conflicts in the country. The protagonists in this saga are often presented as being nomadic Fulani cattle herders, who are mostly Muslims, and sedentary farmer communities of several other ethnic extractions, who are often, but not always non-Muslims. These two distinct groups are usually depicted as perpetrators and victims, respectively. Perspectives of the social, religious and ethnic characteristics of these rural communities are framed into expansive essentialist discourses that actively breed and sustain suspicion and distrust. The result is negative stereotyping between "the one" and "the other" that lead further to ethnic and religious bigotry which fuels the hate process, culminating in further chains of attacks and counter or revenge attacks being exchanged between these different groups. Nigeria urgently needs to find pathways to get out of the crisis and one approach may be the development of grazing reserves for pastoralists.

 

Grazing Reserves As Possible Solution

It is clear that Nigeria and indeed Africa have to plan towards the transformation of pastoralism into settled forms of animal husbandry. The establishment of grazing reserves provides the opportunity for practicing a more limited form of pastoralism and is therefore a pathway towards a more settled form of animal husbandry. Grazing reserves are areas of land demarcated, set aside and reserved for exclusive or semi-exclusive use by pastoralists. Currently, Nigeria has a total of 417 grazing reserves all over the country, out of which only about 113 have been gazetted. There are many problems facing the implementation of the provisions of the 1965 Grazing Reserve Law and the management of the established grazing reserves. First, most of the grazing reserves were established by the then Northern Regional Government. Since the 1970's subsequent military and civilian governments have in effect abandoned the policy of establishing and developing grazing reserves. Secondly, State governments have not been diligent in sustaining previous policies and have not surveyed and gazetted most of the designated grazing reserves. Indeed, only 113 (about 27%) of the 417 proposed grazing reserves have been gazetted.

 

Whether we support or oppose pastoralism, it is clear that at least in the short and medium term, many herds must continue to practice seasonal migration between dry and wet season grazing areas, incorporating past harvest grazing farmland in the highly developed and ecologically sound pattern of transhumance evolved by the pastoralist over the centuries. This is an important point to make at this point when many political actors think it is possible to simply and abruptly ban open grazing. There is indeed, the need for permanent settlement of pastoralists both in the far north and semi humid zone of the middle belt. It is important to focus on the development of grazing reserves as part of the solution.

 

The Law, Politics and Pastoralism

One of the greatest difficulties in addressing and resolving issues surrounding pastoralism is the politicisation of legal regimes and the blockages to the enactment of or implementation of laws that can redress the key challenges posed. In 2016 for example, a bill was proposed - ''A Bill for an Act to establish Grazing Reserve in each of the states of the Federation Nigeria to improve agriculture yield from livestock farming and curb incessant conflicts between cattle farmers and crop farmers in Nigeria.'' The National Assembly on the basis that the Bill appeared to be seeking to favour one particular profession carried out by mainly one ethnic group, the Fulani, threw it out. The problem is that if we cannot have grazing reserves and if pastoralists cannot move, how do we expect the 19 million cattle grazing in the country to survive and how do we protect our Constitutional principle of free movement.

 

Free Movement and Restrictions to Transhumance

There is an emerging conflict between the constitutional principle on free movement of persons and goods and laws emerging in some States restricting movement. In Section 41(1) of the Nigerian Constitution, it is stated that:

 

''Every citizen of Nigeria is entitled to move freely throughout Nigeria and to reside in any part thereof, and no citizen of Nigeria shall be expelled from Nigeria or refused entry thereby or exit therefrom.''

 

Some States have enacted laws or are processing bills to prevent open grazing on their territory. There are four initiatives so far:

 

1.   Ekiti state: Prohibition of Cattle and Other Ruminants Grazing in Ekiti, 2016.

2.   Taraba state: Anti-Open Grazing Prohibition and Ranches Establishment Bill 2017. 'A bill for a law to prohibit open rearing and grazing of livestock and provide for the establishment of ranches and the Taraba State livestock and ranches administration and control committee and for others connected thereto 2017'.

3.   Edo State Bill: A Bill for A Law to Establish the Edo State Control of Nomadic Cattle Rearing/Grazing Law and for Other Purposes.

4.   Benue State Law: A Law to Prohibit Open Rearing and Grazing of Livestock and Provide for the Establishment of Ranches and Livestock Administration, Regulation and Control and for Other Matters Connected Therewith, 2017.

It is worthwhile posing the question whether laws can be effective in prohibiting pastoralism, which is practiced by millions of Nigerians. As some of the laws have already been passed, they would have to be tested in court. It is important to stress however that the Constitution guarantees free movement of persons and goods across Nigeria and no State government can withdraw constitutionally entrenched rights. Secondly, following a legislation by the Ogun State Government and the Supreme Court Judgment on the matter cited as "A.G. OGUN STATE V. ALHAJA AYINKE ABERUAGBA (1985) 1 NWLR PG. 395" States were barred from interfering with inter-state commerce and the free movement of goods and services. At that time, Ogun State had tried to control and tax goods entering from other States and the Supreme Court ruled that it would be chaotic if States enacted any laws they please restricting movement of goods and services in the Federation. It was this judgment that led to the introduction of value added tax (VAT) as a State tax that is determined at the national level and collected by the Federal Government, which takes an administrative fee and redistributes the proceeds back to the States. The key issue however is that pastoralism has developed into a national crisis that is leading to increased violence so a legal approach alone cannot resolve the issue. It is therefore important to negotiate a national policy framework that would protect the interests of both farmers and herders. The Federal Government should take the initiative of negotiating a consensual policy framework that would address the issues.

 

Developing a Comprehensive Policy Framework

Livestock production in Nigeria is in existential crisis and the country lacks a cohesive and comprehensive policy framework for livestock development and regulation in Nigeria. The defunct Northern Grazing Reserve Law has not been updated, the Land Use Act of 1978 is dysfunctional, emerging state grazing reserve laws, the ECOWAS Transhumance Protocol and other related international instruments have to be updated and streamlined.

Recommendation

Piecemeal of sectorial approach to livestock development will not suffice. A new policy framework should be developed that is both comprehensive and must be mutually beneficial to pastoralists and farmers. Any policy that does not take into consideration the welfare of both sides will most likely fail or meet resistance by either side. An inter-ministerial committee should be constituted with experts and stakeholder membership to draw up the framework. There must be a consultative process that listens to the concerns of all stakeholders in developing the new framework so that the outcome would have national ownership.

 

The Future of Pastoralism and Animal Husbandry

Pastoralism is not sustainable in Nigeria over the long term due to high population growth rate, expansion of farming and loss of pasture and cattle routes. At the same time, pastoralism cannot end of be prohibited in the short term as there are strong cultural and political economy reasons for its existence. It is important therefore to develop a plan for a transitional period during which new systems would be put in place.

Recommendations

Experts should be assembled to map out the duration, strategy and timelines for the transition plan. As there is no miracle model for solving the problems, the plan should simultaneously pursue a number of models including:

i.      Ranching can be pursued as one of the possible models in areas with lower population densities in the North East (Sambisa Game Reserve in Borno State) and North West (Gidan Jaja Grazing Reserve in Zamfara State);

ii.    Semi-intensive systems of animal husbandry should be pursued accompanied with requisite investment in infrastructure, training, extension, marketing and animal health service delivery in conjuncture with the private sector;

iii.   The traditional form of pastoralism should continue for a period to be agreed upon with some improvements (in the form of coordinated mobility between wet and dry season grazing areas and effective management of farmers and pastoralists relations);

iv.  Use of and development of grazing reserves to target pastoralists with large stocks where skills for pasture production, large milk production, etc can be promoted.

v.    Development of integrated crop-livestock systems with farmers and pastoralists being encouraged to keep some animals in their farms.

vi.  In order to meet the feeding needs of herds, alternative low water and drought resistant grasses should be produced, in response to the impact of desertification on fodder production.

 

Modernisation of Livestock

Nigeria has one of the lowest productivity levels of livestock in the world. It is for this reason that Nigeria imports very large quantities of milk, fish and chicken. The Nigerian herd requires sustained efforts at quality development based on a modernisation strategy that would transform the industry and move the country towards the objective of self-reliance.

Recommendations

The programme for the country's transition to modern forms of animal husbandry must be accelerated and funded. The national stock would require rapid improvement and modernisation to meet market demands for meat, milk, hides and other products from the industry:

i.               Commercial ranches should be established in some of the sparsely populated zones in the North East and North West;

ii.             The business community should be encouraged through policy measures to invest in the establishment of modern dairy farms;

iii.            Sensitisation programmes should be undertaken on the values of livestock improvem

--

Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Toyin Vincent Adepoju:

Happy New Year! 

Since you are so absolutely sure of the identity and supporters of these criminals, and yet feel hopelessly powerless in contributing to stopping the criminality,  all we can beg you and similar position holders for is patience, so that both Fulani and non-Fulani stakeholders, intellectuaal and otherwise, can (try to) solve the problem? 

Thanks a bunch. 

Bolaji Aluko 

On Thursday, January 11, 2018, Oluwatoyin Vincent Adepoju <toyin.adepoju@gmail.com> wrote:

The sad truth is that this war is being fought exclusively by members of a particular ethnic group, with the connivance of politicians of same ethnicity agst the rest of Nigeria.

Those who can should stop the Fulani militants from killing other Nigerians and save us the rivers of blood and intellectual hair splitting.

toyin

On 11 January 2018 at 17:21, Jibrin Ibrahim <jibrinibrahim891@gmail.com> wrote:

Bolaji

You are absolutely right that the ethnic labels are neither accurate nor a description of what is going on. There is new research by CERDDERT in Zaria that is drawing attention to the underlying reality, the emergence of numerous well armed criminal gangs some ethnic, others multiethnic that are the key actors in the killings and both farming and pastoralists are victims. These criminal groups are straddling between cattle rustling and kidnapping in addition to terrorising communities and we should look at some of these dynamics. I have asked A. S, Mohammed to prepare a summary of their findings which I will distribute.

Moses, Bororo has been the term used for Fulani pastoralists all along and what is new is the phenomenon of these well armed criminal gangs.

Professor Jibrin Ibrahim

Senior Fellow

Centre for Democracy and Development, Abuja

Follow me on twitter @jibrinibrahim17

On 11 January 2018 at 16:36, Moses Ebe Ochonu <meochonu@gmail.com> wrote:

Oga Falola,

You have raised very important appendices to this conversation. While we wait for Jibo's response, let me chime in with my thoughts.

There is indeed a fear of the Fulani, which is both political and existential. This has always been part of Nigeria's tripodal politics of mutual ethnic suspicions. The narrative of a domineering Fulani hegemony has always been a trope of Southern Nigerian and Middle Belt political discourse. Some of the suspicion is real and some of it is grounded in fiction and unfounded fear. I suspect that some of may be be strategic. There is also a rather visceral hostility and suspicion of the Fulani in some quarters. This is largely a politically-driven antipathy. 

There is however genuine outrage at the menace of armed herdsmen militias. Unfortunately, in the current climate, it is difficult to tell the former from the latter as they have overlapped and seeped into each other. That is one of the negative consequences of the incessant, largely ignored killings by these militia. Genuine angst agains the killings have sometimes meshed with a more primordial and political distrust of herdsmen and their non-nomadic Fulani kinsmen. It is quite unfortunate.

It is also unfortunate but hardly surprising that the conversation has morphed into a familiar and rather cliched anti-Fulani rhetoric and the promotion of certain political pathologies about the Fulani as hegemonic and domineering. This is one of the reasons that some of us had been restrained from commenting. If you express outrage at the killings, those who harbor an ethnic or political animus against the Fulani as an ethnic group could latch onto what you say to further their agenda. But you cannot keep quiet when mass murders are being committed on a vast scale.

For starters, it is important to point out that not all Fulani are herdsmen or pastoralists. In fact I would say that MOST Fulani, at least in Nigeria, are not nomadic herdsmen. I attended secondary school in Yola, Adamawa State and it doesn't get more Fulani that Yola. Yet most Fulani in Yola and even in the larger Adamawa State are not nomadic herders. Most of them are actually sedentary farmers and traders and settled herders--or ranchers in the prevailing lingo. So, the ethnicization of this conversation is misleading, and the extension of the culpability of the armed herdsmen killers to all Fulani is wrong.

Even among Fulani herdsmen, a fine-grained distinction needs to be made. We all grew up with nomadic Fulani herders in our communities and consumed their dairy products, which we obtained sometimes by battering grains and other items that they needed. They were largely peaceful. They respected the host communities. Whenever their cattle transgressed in farmlands, they obeyed local traditional authorities and paid compensation. When they felt aggrieved by members of host communities, they approached the local authorities for redress. This still happens with some nomadic herders.

What has changed?

What has changed is that, there is a new group (a sub-group, if you will) of herders who have broken this unwritten rule governing relations between herders and farmers. They no longer respect local constituted authorities and have no respect for farmers or their crops in host communities. They are also armed and ready to use these arms to enforce their will and desires on host communities and to kill and sack communities if and when challenged. Needless to say that this small group of ultra-aggressive and violent herdsmen that many now call the Bororo has made life difficult for the nomadic and semi-nomadic herdsmen that many communities across the country have been familiar with for decades if not centuries. Through their mass murders and other heinous acts, they have given a bad name to all herders and helped create a negative stereotype of herders as mass murderers, rapists, and terrorists. It is this stereotype that is now being mobilized mischievously by some people to reinforce previously existing political suspicions of the Fulani ethnic group as a whole.

I was discussing with a member of this list from Kwara state who told me that in his hometow, people are now scared to go to farms after recent incidents of violence and killings of farmers by armed herdsmen. His story is quite emblematic of what is going on across the country. His hometown, a Muslim kingdom with an emir, has, for centuries, welcomed and hosted nomadic Fulani groups, trading with them, interacting with them, and in some cases even intermarrying with them. So deep and historical are these relations that some of the Fulani have now actually settled with their cattle on the outskirts of the community and for all practical purposes have become a part of its fabric. Recently, however, this picture was shattered when a new group of nomadic Fulani herdsmen arrived in the area armed with sophisticated weapons and, unlike previous groups nomads, began aggressively and recklessly encroaching on farms and killing local farmers who challenged them. The most telling aspect of this story is that these armed nomadic killers have not spared the settled and semi-settled Fulani nomadic communities in the area. These new, aggressive and armed nomads have killed local nomads and sacked Fulani settlements in the area as well, sending shockwaves through the entire community, with both Fulani and non-Fulani running for their lives. When my friend asked his people who these new Fulani nomads are, he was told that both his people and the older, largely peaceful Fulani communities in the area call the new, violent nomads Bororo, clearly a term to differentiate them from the other Fulani nomadic groups that have been coexisting with the people of the area for centuries.

My point in telling this story is to yet again underscore the unhelpfulness of generalization and to reinforce the distinctions that must be made among the Fulani and also among the pastoral herdsmen as a way of isolating and defining the identity and character of the mass killers and terrorists who pose a clear threat to the nation.

The danger of ethnicization and generalization is that we will lose allies among the sedentary Fulani and among Fulani intellectuals and aristocrats, who share ethnic affinity with both groups of herdsmen and would resist a quest for solutions that unfairly castigates and stereotypes the Fulani as an ethnic group. The other downside of course is that such an approach is unfair to the historical Fulani nomadic groups whose descendants continue to desire peaceful coexistence with host communities and have at times, as the case I narrated shows, become victims of the killer herdsmen. This victimhood is not just in having their cattle rustled or in being killed by their armed and violent Fulani nomadic kinsmen. It is also in the fact that, unfortunately, the murderous activities of the armed herdsmen militia have destroyed the trust between host communities and historical, largely peaceful Fulani nomadic and semi-nomadic groups. 

This is precisely the reason why, if I were Fulani, whether I'm a nomad or not, I would support the effort to isolate the Bororo mass murderous and deal decisively with them. I would not want my reputation and ethnicity sullied and subjected further to the kind of castigation, negative stereotyping, and suspicions that you outlined above in your questions to Jibrin.

On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 9:26 AM, Mobolaji Aluko <alukome@gmail.com> wrote:

Jibrin:

This question is really what I cannot understand.  Why put an ethnic label on murderers _ Fulani - , or even a trade label on them - herdsmen - when not only do I  know many Fulani who are neither herdsmen or murderers, but many herdsmen who are also not Fulani or murderers! 

By labeling them constantly as "Fulani herdsmen", you clearly cause some natural defence _ by Fulani individuals, or by herdsmen, or both (MAKH)  - of otherwise indefensible and outrage conduct. 

Unfortunately,   in Nigeria's toxic political environment, these particular dog whistle has become a latter day characterization of the armed wing of the feared "Hausa Fulani hegemony" which many of us in the South and Middle Beltran railed against in earlier decades.  That armed wing used to be the Military... The civilian ogre is now MAKH nationwide,  not even BH, which is confined to the NE.   

That Buhari is now President - that famed defender of yore of Fulani herdsmen before Oyo Governor Lamidi Adesina - - appears maddening to a core group of Nigerians.  His herdsmen mentality could not be used to prevent him in 2015... Should we not try again in 2019, beginning now?  Is the politicization of criminality - which led to the escalation of BH - once again rearing its ugly head through official inertia? 

Honestly, we need new thinking and language.  We must drop the etnicizatiin of criminality - whether pastoral-related killings, or cult- or politics related kidnappings, etc _ so that we undercut all their support oxygen. When criminals are caught and punished, we must ensure that no one begins to say "Oh, it us because they are Fulani, or Yoruba or Igbo, etc" because such characterizations weaken the resolve to go after the crime. 

And there you have it. 

Bolaji Aluko 

On Thursday, January 11, 2018, Jibrin Ibrahim <jibrinibrahim891@gmail.com> wrote:

What is happening to our intellectuals, how can a whole ethnic group be categorised as murderers. 

Professor Jibrin Ibrahim

Senior Fellow

Centre for Democracy and Development, Abuja

Follow me on twitter @jibrinibrahim17

On 11 January 2018 at 10:18, Femi Segun <soloruntoba@gmail.com> wrote:

Added to this spurious attempt to defend the indefensible is the recommendation in the panel report that grazing reserves should be carved out, more or less compulsorily. That option should not and cannot be an imposition, except of course we are saying, the murderers have more rights than the people that they have been killing. As Wole Soyinka said in his piece in the Punch of yesterday, the claim by the Inspector General of Police that the killing  was a product of  communal clashes, bespeaks shameful display of ignorance by a law enforcement officer of his rank. Communal clashes occur among neighbors, not between people who leave far apart.  Whether or not PMB is contesting in 2019, he needs to drop his toga of an ethnically and religiously biased posturing. Why on earth will he declare Operation Python and Operation Dance in the Southeast and South South without deeming fit to deploy Soldiers to the Middle Belt to stop these mindless killings? 

On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 12:46 AM, Moses Ebe Ochonu <meochonu@gmail.com> wrote:

But in Zamfara state, the killings are occuring between cattle rustlers and herders, both of whom are Fulani for the most part, the cattle rustlers sometimes being former herders and vice versa. It was only later that the crisis pitted some Fulani herders against non-Fulani communities as these communities began to take revenge indiscriminately against Fulani herders after their communities were attacked by the Fulani bandits.The president has largely solved that problem by inaugurating in the first few months of his tenure a military task force to deal with the issue in that axis extending all the way to Birnin Gwari in Kaduna State. Perhaps you need to give us the evidence of herdsmen being killed in Benue. Even Miyetti has not alleged killings in Benue; rather it claims that its members lost 1000 cattle to theft when they were migrating from Benue to Nasarawa state, and that the recent massacre was revenge for the loss of said cattle. I'm sure some herdsmen have lost their lives in the expanding collision between armed Bororo herders and farming communities across the country. However, only one group, the herdsmen, have a roving, armed militia that is killing and terrorizing people and sacking communities with impunity from Zamfara to Southern Kaduna, to Plateau, to Benue, to Enugu, to Kogi, Edo, and beyond. There is a pattern of nationwide terror for which the armed wings of Bororo herdsmen are responsible. That is a discernible pattern that should be recognized on its own terms without the forced narrative that killings are not one-sided. It does not help to construct false equalences or to manufacture claims about herdsmen killings that the herdsmen themselves have not made. The  herdsmen militia, mobile and murderous, are an existential threat to Nigeria. I hope Buhari wakes up from his nonchalance and deals with it as the national threat that it is. Jonathan was late to recognize the threat that Boko Haram posed to the nation and he paid a political price for it, not to mention the thousands of needless deaths that occurred as a result of his conspiracy-fueled tardiness. We do not help him recognize the threat when we throw out exculpatory and obfuscatory canards such as "the killings are not one-sided." A pattern of terror stalks the land, and it is traceable to one roving, murderous militia. Pointing to isolated, historically familiar, and sporadic incidents of mutual conflict between herdsmen and their sedentary hosts should not be advanced to take attention away from this national threat. That sporadic, familiar conflict has been with us for centuries and was never a problem until this strangely new group of Bororo herders decided to use brute force, backed by a well armed militia, to take grazing land from farming communities and to punish them when they would not yield.

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Jibrin Ibrahim <jibrinibrahim891@gmail.com> wrote:

In Zamfara State, a killer State, a killer squad has been killing Fulani pastoralists for the past two years and no one is talking about it. In Benue, the same thing has happened and I am told I can't say killing is done by both sides. Yes the media is heavily one-sided in its reporting and the Fulani story is not being told, and it should be. All killings are unacceptable, why can't we take this as a point of departure.

Professor Jibrin Ibrahim

Senior Fellow

Centre for Democracy and Development, Abuja

Follow me on twitter @jibrinibrahim17

On 10 January 2018 at 21:20, segun ogungbemi <seguno2013@gmail.com> wrote:

Legislative Solutions

"There are discordant laws and regulations that legislate livestock production and pastoralism at the regional, national and state levels. Some of the newly emerging laws such as the "anti-grazing" state laws appear to contradict the free movement principle enshrined in the Constitution."

I just want to comment on the above quotation. My response is that the idea of free movement is not elastic. You have freedom of movement insofar as  it does not enchroach on the right of others to personal property and protection of life. For instance,  if I invest in farming and my crops flourish and just before harvesting them a herdsman and his cows enchroach on the farm and destroy the crops,  the law does not permit the herdsman and his animals to violate my right to property. 

There is a mutual respect between one with  freedom and another with right. Each must know his limit to avoid unnessary  conflicts of interest. That is what is missing in both claims of freedom and right agents in Nigeria.

That is where National Orientation Agency and social media should try to educate the masses.   

Segun. 

On Jan 10, 2018 16:43, "Femi Segun" <soloruntoba@gmail.com> wrote:

Oga Toyin

I beg to differ. This position defeats  the pursuit of nation-building and societal harmony. We need an effective state and visionary leadership to manage the various centripetal and centrifugal forces. Saying we don't need them is an escapist answer. Damage has been done and still being done, but we cannot hands off in defeat.Many of us cried out last year  when some misguided youth gave ultimatum to the Igbos to leave the North. We must help this government to think right and act justly.

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 4:04 PM, Oluwatoyin Vincent Adepoju <toyin.adepoju@gmail.com> wrote:

The Fulani herdsmen problem is the work of a group of terrorists trying to obtain other people's land through massacre.

Please stay in your region with your cows.

We dont need them.

toyion

On 9 January 2018 at 21:50, Jibrin Ibrahim <jibrinibrahim891@gmail.com> wrote:

Please note that the killing is not one sided as is often reported in the press. Militia groups have emerged to kill herdsmen and they are having a lot of success. Ranches is very misunderstood concept and only operates in thinly populated dry lands where a lot of land can be allocated to cattle owners, thats not our situation. The issue has become very emotive and objective discussion has become difficult but we are trying to do just that.

Professor Jibrin Ibrahim

Senior Fellow

Centre for Democracy and Development, Abuja

Follow me on twitter @jibrinibrahim17

On 9 January 2018 at 14:50, Femi Segun <soloruntoba@gmail.com> wrote:

Much as one should commend the efforts of the panel members who put up this report, I hasten to say that it is very cosmetic and somehow apologetic of a certain interest-the interest of the Pastoralists. One would have expected that a panel that is made up of such experts should go as far as recommending restorative  justice for the families of thousands that have been killed by the Pastoralists. I read an article in the Punch today, where the leader of the Myetti Allah in Benue State said his group had to kill 25 human beings because 1000 cows were stolen. Has life become so cheap as to be trading human lives for cows? Ideally, reports of this  nature should  have inputs from all the parties that have been affected by the ongoing conflicts in one way or the other. Several arguments have been put out there on the imperative of having cattle ranches. Even though this was mentioned in the report, it is obvious that the preference is the continuation of the current order of moving cattle from the North to the South-with all the consequences. This preference was presented as if it is law, that cannot be challenged. In a plural society like ours, such proclivity can be interpreted to mean an expression  of superiority of one group over another. Can we claim to be a member of the  civilised world if we lack the courage to say or do  what is obtainable in other civilised societies? To what extent can a farmer from Ekiti or Umuahia be allowed to take over land by the force of arms in Sokoto or Kaduna in the name of constitutional provision of freedom of movement? In order to forestall the worsening of the violence and other social consequences that the report rightly highlighted, I will suggest that the recommendations should be rethought and redrafted to acknowledge the pain that those who have needlessly suffered loss of lives are going through and proffer solutions to alleviating such pains in form of compensations. The Government should also stop the current  parochial approach to a festering national sore by developing the courage to apprehend, try in the court of law and punish people who murder human beings  in exchange for cows. Methink there are laws that cover stealing in Nigeria. Those who are found to have stolen cows should also be tried and given just sentence. Additionally, the hard option of cattle ranches should be pursued rather than hiding under the constitution to justify the wanton destruction of lives and livelihood of farmers, across the country. This report falls short of expectations in terms of providing intellectual leadership on nation building and cohesion, especially coming from such a distinguished panel. 

Samuel

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 12:41 PM, Jibrin Ibrahim <jibrinibrahim891@gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

Pastoralist-Farmers Conflicts and the Search for Peaceful Resolution

 

Memorandum by the Nigerian Working Group on Peace Building and Governance

 

Abuja, 8^th January 2018

 

Executive Summary

Pastoralists-farmers' conflicts in Nigeria have grown, spread and intensified over the past decade and today poses a threat to national survival. Thousands of people have been killed, communities have been destroyed and so many farmers and pastoralists have lost their lives and property in an orgy of killings and destruction that is not only destroying livelihoods but also affecting national cohesion. Nigeria has about 19 million cattle much of it in the hands of pastoralists and we need to seek solutions to the problem of pastoralism while resolving the problem of insecurity that has arisen.

 

The Problem

Nigeria's population has grown from 33 million in 1950 to about 192.3 million today. This phenomenal increase of the population has put enormous pressure on land and water resources used by farmers and pastoralists. One of the outcomes of this process has been the blockage of transhumance routes and loss of grazing land to agricultural expansion and the increased southward movement of pastoralists has led to increased conflict with local communities. This is particularly the case in the Middle Belt – notably in Plateau, Kaduna, Niger, Nassarawa, Benue, Taraba, and Adamawa States. The conflicts primarily involve Fulani pastoralists and local farming communities. As violence between herdsmen and farmers has grown and developed into criminality and rural banditry, popular narratives in the form of hate speech have exacerbated the crisis.

 

Grazing Reserves As Possible Solution

It is clear that Nigeria and indeed Africa have to plan towards the transformation of pastoralism into settled forms of animal husbandry. The establishment of grazing reserves provides the opportunity for practicing a more limited form of pastoralism and is therefore a pathway towards a more settled form of animal husbandry. Nigeria has a total of 417 grazing reserves out of which only about 113 have been gazetted. Whether we support or oppose pastoralism, it is clear that at least in the short and medium term, many herds must continue to practice seasonal migration between dry and wet season grazing areas. Ultimately, there is the need for permanent settlement of pastoralists.

 

The Law, Politics and Pastoralism

One of the greatest difficulties in addressing and resolving issues surrounding pastoralism is the politicisation of legal regimes and the blockages to the enactment of or implementation of laws that can redress the key challenges posed. In 2016 for example, a bill was proposed - ''A Bill for an Act to establish Grazing Reserve in each of the states of the Federation Nigeria to improve agriculture yield from livestock farming and curb incessant conflicts between cattle farmers and crop farmers in Nigeria'' was thrown out. There is an emerging conflict between the constitutional principle on free movement of persons and goods and laws emerging in some States restricting movement. Some States have enacted laws or are processing bills to prevent open grazing on their territory. There are four initiatives so far in Benue, Ekiti, Taraba and Edo States. Could such laws be effective in prohibiting pastoralism, which is practiced by millions of Nigerians?

 

Developing a Comprehensive Policy Framework

A new policy framework on the farmers-pastoralists crisis should be developed that is both comprehensive and mutually beneficial to both groups. An inter-ministerial committee should be constituted with experts and stakeholder membership to draw up the framework. There must be a consultative process that listens to the concerns of all stakeholders in developing the new framework so that the outcome would have national ownership. Pastoralism is not sustainable in Nigeria over the long term due to high population growth rate, expansion of farming and loss of pasture and cattle routes. At the same time, pastoralism cannot end or be prohibited in the short term, as there are strong cultural and political economy reasons for its existence. The new policy should develop a plan for a transitional period during which new systems would be put in place. The framework should map out the duration, strategy and timelines for the transition plan. Finally, a comprehensive approach to address the growing crisis associated with violence affecting pastoralism and farmers in Nigeria is necessary.

Introduction

Pastoralists-farmers' conflicts in Nigeria have grown, spread and intensified over the past decade and today poses a threat to national survival. Thousands of people have been killed, communities have been destroyed and so many farmers and pastoralists have lost their lives and property in an orgy of killings and destruction that is not only destroying livelihoods but also affecting national cohesion. Each day, we witness more reprisal killings that are simply making the possibilities of peaceful resolution more difficult. Rural banditry is becoming the norm in the Nigerian hinterland and has been transformed into a vicious criminal activity. The result is that the scale of loss of both herds and human life has been escalating and the victims are on all sides – subsistence farmers, commercial farmers and pastoralists. Nonetheless, we write this memo to say we cannot give up to hate and destruction, let's pause, reflect and seek a way out of the crisis.

 

Nigeria has a large pastoral population the logic of whose livelihood is often misunderstood. What is better understood is the culture of farming, which is rooted in a specific location and has activities that take place regularly. The assumption that pastoralism is in itself an irrational production system is far from the truth. Pastoralism is the main livestock production system in much of Africa where pastoralists live in semi arid zones. It is a historically developed strategy to cope with the uncertainties associated with climate change, build up of parasites and other related challenges. It is above all an efficient way to produce livestock at relatively low prices through the use of non-commercial feeding stock. Historically, pastoralists have been able to meet the meat demand in West Africa with a relatively high level of efficiency without government subsidy for generations.

Different methods through the use of farm residue and open range grazing has allowed this trend to flourish. Nigeria has a landmass of 98.3 million hectares, 82 million hectares of arable land of which about 34 million hectares are currently under cultivation. In crop farming, human beings only directly utilize about a quarter of the total biomass. The other three quarters is in the form of crop residue and low quality crop, which is not directly useful to people. It is this residue that cattle (ruminants) convert into meat and milk. In addition to this, cattle also utilize grasses on fallow lands, non-arable poor quality lands, open ranges and fadama in the same manner. Pastoralists move their animals to these locations to access these opportunities. This system of production is breaking down today as violent conflicts between pastoralists and farmers have arisen and created a major national crisis.

The Problem

Nigeria's population has grown from 33 million in 1950 to about 192.3 million today. The United Nations recently projected more growth in terms of population in the coming years, 364 million in 2030 and 480 million in 2050 respectively. This phenomenal increase of the population has put enormous pressure on land and water resources used by farmers and pastoralists. Specifically, the demographic increase has led to an expansion in cultivated farmland and a reduction in available grazing land for pastoralists that is characterised by competition over dwindling resources. In the far north, the impact of desertification as well as the crisis of energy, which has resulted in deforestation, coupled with climatic uncertainty and lower rainfall have made it more difficult to sustain increasing populations, pushing many farmers and pastoralists with livestock southwards. This has happened gradually over a period of decades – with an apparent increase over the past decade – and has added to pressure on land and water in central and southern Nigeria.

 

One of the outcomes of this process has been the blockage of transhumance routes and loss of grazing land to agricultural expansion and the increased southward movement of pastoralists has led to increased conflict with local communities. This is particularly the case in the Middle Belt – notably in Plateau, Kaduna, Niger, Nassarawa, Benue, Taraba, and Adamawa States. The conflicts often have localised dynamics, but primarily involve Fulani pastoralists and local farming communities.

 

The Nigerian state has a relatively weak rural presence and has neglected the agrarian sector since the 1970s, when oil revenues began to dominate the economy. There have been few improvements in agricultural productivity and livestock production as a result of the dependence on oil revenues, which have not been reinvested in productive economic activities. State response in the context of the lingering conflicts between farmers and pastoralists has been both ad hoc and reactive, with no concrete and sustainable strategies for conflict management and peace building beyond the deployment of security or establishment of commissions of inquiries. One of the key pathways here is for the state to be more proactive in its responses by putting in place mechanisms that are institutionalised and sustainable both at the local and state levels.

 

As violence between herdsmen and farmers has grown and developed into criminality and rural banditry, popular narratives creating meaning, context and (mis) understandings have been emerging. The narratives emerging on rural banditry in the media and in popular discourse are becoming part of the drivers for expanding conflicts in the country. The protagonists in this saga are often presented as being nomadic Fulani cattle herders, who are mostly Muslims, and sedentary farmer communities of several other ethnic extractions, who are often, but not always non-Muslims. These two distinct groups are usually depicted as perpetrators and victims, respectively. Perspectives of the social, religious and ethnic characteristics of these rural communities are framed into expansive essentialist discourses that actively breed and sustain suspicion and distrust. The result is negative stereotyping between "the one" and "the other" that lead further to ethnic and religious bigotry which fuels the hate process, culminating in further chains of attacks and counter or revenge attacks being exchanged between these different groups. Nigeria urgently needs to find pathways to get out of the crisis and one approach may be the development of grazing reserves for pastoralists.

 

Grazing Reserves As Possible Solution

It is clear that Nigeria and indeed Africa have to plan towards the transformation of pastoralism into settled forms of animal husbandry. The establishment of grazing reserves provides the opportunity for practicing a more limited form of pastoralism and is therefore a pathway towards a more settled form of animal husbandry. Grazing reserves are areas of land demarcated, set aside and reserved for exclusive or semi-exclusive use by pastoralists. Currently, Nigeria has a total of 417 grazing reserves all over the country, out of which only about 113 have been gazetted. There are many problems facing the implementation of the provisions of the 1965 Grazing Reserve Law and the management of the established grazing reserves. First, most of the grazing reserves were established by the then Northern Regional Government. Since the 1970's subsequent military and civilian governments have in effect abandoned the policy of establishing and developing grazing reserves. Secondly, State governments have not been diligent in sustaining previous policies and have not surveyed and gazetted most of the designated grazing reserves. Indeed, only 113 (about 27%) of the 417 proposed grazing reserves have been gazetted.

 

Whether we support or oppose pastoralism, it is clear that at least in the short and medium term, many herds must continue to practice seasonal migration between dry and wet season grazing areas, incorporating past harvest grazing farmland in the highly developed and ecologically sound pattern of transhumance evolved by the pastoralist over the centuries. This is an important point to make at this point when many political actors think it is possible to simply and abruptly ban open grazing. There is indeed, the need for permanent settlement of pastoralists both in the far north and semi humid zone of the middle belt. It is important to focus on the development of grazing reserves as part of the solution.

 

The Law, Politics and Pastoralism

One of the greatest difficulties in addressing and resolving issues surrounding pastoralism is the politicisation of legal regimes and the blockages to the enactment of or implementation of laws that can redress the key challenges posed. In 2016 for example, a bill was proposed - ''A Bill for an Act to establish Grazing Reserve in each of the states of the Federation Nigeria to improve agriculture yield from livestock farming and curb incessant conflicts between cattle farmers and crop farmers in Nigeria.'' The National Assembly on the basis that the Bill appeared to be seeking to favour one particular profession carried out by mainly one ethnic group, the Fulani, threw it out. The problem is that if we cannot have grazing reserves and if pastoralists cannot move, how do we expect the 19 million cattle grazing in the country to survive and how do we protect our Constitutional principle of free movement.

 

Free Movement and Restrictions to Transhumance

There is an emerging conflict between the constitutional principle on free movement of persons and goods and laws emerging in some States restricting movement. In Section 41(1) of the Nigerian Constitution, it is stated that:

 

''Every citizen of Nigeria is entitled to move freely throughout Nigeria and to reside in any part thereof, and no citizen of Nigeria shall be expelled from Nigeria or refused entry thereby or exit therefrom.''

 

Some States have enacted laws or are processing bills to prevent open grazing on their territory. There are four initiatives so far:

 

1.   Ekiti state: Prohibition of Cattle and Other Ruminants Grazing in Ekiti, 2016.

2.   Taraba state: Anti-Open Grazing Prohibition and Ranches Establishment Bill 2017. 'A bill for a law to prohibit open rearing and grazing of livestock and provide for the establishment of ranches and the Taraba State livestock and ranches administration and control committee and for others connected thereto 2017'.

3.   Edo State Bill: A Bill for A Law to Establish the Edo State Control of Nomadic Cattle Rearing/Grazing Law and for Other Purposes.

4.   Benue State Law: A Law to Prohibit Open Rearing and Grazing of Livestock and Provide for the Establishment of Ranches and Livestock Administration, Regulation and Control and for Other Matters Connected Therewith, 2017.

It is worthwhile posing the question whether laws can be effective in prohibiting pastoralism, which is practiced by millions of Nigerians. As some of the laws have already been passed, they would have to be tested in court. It is important to stress however that the Constitution guarantees free movement of persons and goods across Nigeria and no State government can withdraw constitutionally entrenched rights. Secondly, following a legislation by the Ogun State Government and the Supreme Court Judgment on the matter cited as "A.G. OGUN STATE V. ALHAJA AYINKE ABERUAGBA (1985) 1 NWLR PG. 395" States were barred from interfering with inter-state commerce and the free movement of goods and services. At that time, Ogun State had tried to control and tax goods entering from other States and the Supreme Court ruled that it would be chaotic if States enacted any laws they please restricting movement of goods and services in the Federation. It was this judgment that led to the introduction of value added tax (VAT) as a State tax that is determined at the national level and collected by the Federal Government, which takes an administrative fee and redistributes the proceeds back to the States. The key issue however is that pastoralism has developed into a national crisis that is leading to increased violence so a legal approach alone cannot resolve the issue. It is therefore important to negotiate a national policy framework that would protect the interests of both farmers and herders. The Federal Government should take the initiative of negotiating a consensual policy framework that would address the issues.

 

Developing a Comprehensive Policy Framework

Livestock production in Nigeria is in existential crisis and the country lacks a cohesive and comprehensive policy framework for livestock development and regulation in Nigeria. The defunct Northern Grazing Reserve Law has not been updated, the Land Use Act of 1978 is dysfunctional, emerging state grazing reserve laws, the ECOWAS Transhumance Protocol and other related international instruments have to be updated and streamlined.

Recommendation

Piecemeal of sectorial approach to livestock development will not suffice. A new policy framework should be developed that is both comprehensive and must be mutually beneficial to pastoralists and farmers. Any policy that does not take into consideration the welfare of both sides will most likely fail or meet resistance by either side. An inter-ministerial committee should be constituted with experts and stakeholder membership to draw up the framework. There must be a consultative process that listens to the concerns of all stakeholders in developing the new framework so that the outcome would have national ownership.

 

The Future of Pastoralism and Animal Husbandry

Pastoralism is not sustainable in Nigeria over the long term due to high population growth rate, expansion of farming and loss of pasture and cattle routes. At the same time, pastoralism cannot end of be prohibited in the short term as there are strong cultural and political economy reasons for its existence. It is important therefore to develop a plan for a transitional period during which new systems would be put in place.

Recommendations

Experts should be assembled to map out the duration, strategy and timelines for the transition plan. As there is no miracle model for solving the problems, the plan should simultaneously pursue a number of models including:

i.      Ranching can be pursued as one of the possible models in areas with lower population densities in the North East (Sambisa Game Reserve in Borno State) and North West (Gidan Jaja Grazing Reserve in Zamfara State);

ii.    Semi-intensive systems of animal husbandry should be pursued accompanied with requisite investment in infrastructure, training, extension, marketing and animal health servic

--

Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Toyin Vincent Adepoju:

Please don't add misrepresentation - a euphemism either for untruth or lies - to hysteria.  

My position has always been to point to the illogicality of herdsmen -  Fulani or otherwise - who depend on the living to but their cows for food or leather - to mass-kill their customers as they roam from town to town!   I have never supported begat I've or positive attributions to while groups of people, because that is the very definition of racism  - and too many Nigerians are openly racist, even as they trumpet how great their in ethnic group is, while denigrating others. 

You are now advancing the age-old Sardinia alleged  theory of Fulani  dipping the Koran into the sea through a gradual creation of geographical beach heads, in the Middle Belt, SE and SW?  

Really?  How come you know this ingenious device and no one else?  Where is this dossier? 

And now that we know - and since we cannot do without beef and leather - why don't Middle Belters s and other non-Fulani create ranches and cow colonies, populate these  themselves to undercut this insidious plan? 

Of course, you have always opposed Buhari's political ascendancy, but that is the topic of another Symposium.... Or is it the same Symposium? 

Bolaji Aluko 

On Thursday, January 11, 2018, Oluwatoyin Vincent Adepoju <toyin.adepoju@gmail.com> wrote:

Mobolaji Aluko:

Great new yer to you.

It is gratifying to see even you agree at last we have a large scale problem when your previous stance was that too much was being made out of isolated skirmishes.

The only solution being preferred by the terrorists and their representatives is that they must be given free land across Nigeria.

If you know of any other solution they offer, please educate us.

They refuse to build ranches in their own territory. The preferred method is to compel agreement to their demands through making rivers of blood.

Great thanks

toyin

On 11 January 2018 at 18:03, Mobolaji Aluko <alukome@gmail.com> wrote:

Toyin Vincent Adepoju:

Happy New Year! 

Since you are so absolutely sure of the identity and supporters of these criminals, and yet feel hopelessly powerless in contributing to stopping the criminality,  all we can beg you and similar position holders for is patience, so that both Fulani and non-Fulani stakeholders, intellectuaal and otherwise, can (try to) solve the problem? 

Thanks a bunch. 

Bolaji Aluko 

On Thursday, January 11, 2018, Oluwatoyin Vincent Adepoju <toyin.adepoju@gmail.com> wrote:

The sad truth is that this war is being fought exclusively by members of a particular ethnic group, with the connivance of politicians of same ethnicity agst the rest of Nigeria.

Those who can should stop the Fulani militants from killing other Nigerians and save us the rivers of blood and intellectual hair splitting.

toyin

On 11 January 2018 at 17:21, Jibrin Ibrahim <jibrinibrahim891@gmail.com> wrote:

Bolaji

You are absolutely right that the ethnic labels are neither accurate nor a description of what is going on. There is new research by CERDDERT in Zaria that is drawing attention to the underlying reality, the emergence of numerous well armed criminal gangs some ethnic, others multiethnic that are the key actors in the killings and both farming and pastoralists are victims. These criminal groups are straddling between cattle rustling and kidnapping in addition to terrorising communities and we should look at some of these dynamics. I have asked A. S, Mohammed to prepare a summary of their findings which I will distribute.

Moses, Bororo has been the term used for Fulani pastoralists all along and what is new is the phenomenon of these well armed criminal gangs.

Professor Jibrin Ibrahim

Senior Fellow

Centre for Democracy and Development, Abuja

Follow me on twitter @jibrinibrahim17

On 11 January 2018 at 16:36, Moses Ebe Ochonu <meochonu@gmail.com> wrote:

Oga Falola,

You have raised very important appendices to this conversation. While we wait for Jibo's response, let me chime in with my thoughts.

There is indeed a fear of the Fulani, which is both political and existential. This has always been part of Nigeria's tripodal politics of mutual ethnic suspicions. The narrative of a domineering Fulani hegemony has always been a trope of Southern Nigerian and Middle Belt political discourse. Some of the suspicion is real and some of it is grounded in fiction and unfounded fear. I suspect that some of may be be strategic. There is also a rather visceral hostility and suspicion of the Fulani in some quarters. This is largely a politically-driven antipathy. 

There is however genuine outrage at the menace of armed herdsmen militias. Unfortunately, in the current climate, it is difficult to tell the former from the latter as they have overlapped and seeped into each other. That is one of the negative consequences of the incessant, largely ignored killings by these militia. Genuine angst agains the killings have sometimes meshed with a more primordial and political distrust of herdsmen and their non-nomadic Fulani kinsmen. It is quite unfortunate.

It is also unfortunate but hardly surprising that the conversation has morphed into a familiar and rather cliched anti-Fulani rhetoric and the promotion of certain political pathologies about the Fulani as hegemonic and domineering. This is one of the reasons that some of us had been restrained from commenting. If you express outrage at the killings, those who harbor an ethnic or political animus against the Fulani as an ethnic group could latch onto what you say to further their agenda. But you cannot keep quiet when mass murders are being committed on a vast scale.

For starters, it is important to point out that not all Fulani are herdsmen or pastoralists. In fact I would say that MOST Fulani, at least in Nigeria, are not nomadic herdsmen. I attended secondary school in Yola, Adamawa State and it doesn't get more Fulani that Yola. Yet most Fulani in Yola and even in the larger Adamawa State are not nomadic herders. Most of them are actually sedentary farmers and traders and settled herders--or ranchers in the prevailing lingo. So, the ethnicization of this conversation is misleading, and the extension of the culpability of the armed herdsmen killers to all Fulani is wrong.

Even among Fulani herdsmen, a fine-grained distinction needs to be made. We all grew up with nomadic Fulani herders in our communities and consumed their dairy products, which we obtained sometimes by battering grains and other items that they needed. They were largely peaceful. They respected the host communities. Whenever their cattle transgressed in farmlands, they obeyed local traditional authorities and paid compensation. When they felt aggrieved by members of host communities, they approached the local authorities for redress. This still happens with some nomadic herders.

What has changed?

What has changed is that, there is a new group (a sub-group, if you will) of herders who have broken this unwritten rule governing relations between herders and farmers. They no longer respect local constituted authorities and have no respect for farmers or their crops in host communities. They are also armed and ready to use these arms to enforce their will and desires on host communities and to kill and sack communities if and when challenged. Needless to say that this small group of ultra-aggressive and violent herdsmen that many now call the Bororo has made life difficult for the nomadic and semi-nomadic herdsmen that many communities across the country have been familiar with for decades if not centuries. Through their mass murders and other heinous acts, they have given a bad name to all herders and helped create a negative stereotype of herders as mass murderers, rapists, and terrorists. It is this stereotype that is now being mobilized mischievously by some people to reinforce previously existing political suspicions of the Fulani ethnic group as a whole.

I was discussing with a member of this list from Kwara state who told me that in his hometow, people are now scared to go to farms after recent incidents of violence and killings of farmers by armed herdsmen. His story is quite emblematic of what is going on across the country. His hometown, a Muslim kingdom with an emir, has, for centuries, welcomed and hosted nomadic Fulani groups, trading with them, interacting with them, and in some cases even intermarrying with them. So deep and historical are these relations that some of the Fulani have now actually settled with their cattle on the outskirts of the community and for all practical purposes have become a part of its fabric. Recently, however, this picture was shattered when a new group of nomadic Fulani herdsmen arrived in the area armed with sophisticated weapons and, unlike previous groups nomads, began aggressively and recklessly encroaching on farms and killing local farmers who challenged them. The most telling aspect of this story is that these armed nomadic killers have not spared the settled and semi-settled Fulani nomadic communities in the area. These new, aggressive and armed nomads have killed local nomads and sacked Fulani settlements in the area as well, sending shockwaves through the entire community, with both Fulani and non-Fulani running for their lives. When my friend asked his people who these new Fulani nomads are, he was told that both his people and the older, largely peaceful Fulani communities in the area call the new, violent nomads Bororo, clearly a term to differentiate them from the other Fulani nomadic groups that have been coexisting with the people of the area for centuries.

My point in telling this story is to yet again underscore the unhelpfulness of generalization and to reinforce the distinctions that must be made among the Fulani and also among the pastoral herdsmen as a way of isolating and defining the identity and character of the mass killers and terrorists who pose a clear threat to the nation.

The danger of ethnicization and generalization is that we will lose allies among the sedentary Fulani and among Fulani intellectuals and aristocrats, who share ethnic affinity with both groups of herdsmen and would resist a quest for solutions that unfairly castigates and stereotypes the Fulani as an ethnic group. The other downside of course is that such an approach is unfair to the historical Fulani nomadic groups whose descendants continue to desire peaceful coexistence with host communities and have at times, as the case I narrated shows, become victims of the killer herdsmen. This victimhood is not just in having their cattle rustled or in being killed by their armed and violent Fulani nomadic kinsmen. It is also in the fact that, unfortunately, the murderous activities of the armed herdsmen militia have destroyed the trust between host communities and historical, largely peaceful Fulani nomadic and semi-nomadic groups. 

This is precisely the reason why, if I were Fulani, whether I'm a nomad or not, I would support the effort to isolate the Bororo mass murderous and deal decisively with them. I would not want my reputation and ethnicity sullied and subjected further to the kind of castigation, negative stereotyping, and suspicions that you outlined above in your questions to Jibrin.

On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 9:26 AM, Mobolaji Aluko <alukome@gmail.com> wrote:

Jibrin:

This question is really what I cannot understand.  Why put an ethnic label on murderers _ Fulani - , or even a trade label on them - herdsmen - when not only do I  know many Fulani who are neither herdsmen or murderers, but many herdsmen who are also not Fulani or murderers! 

By labeling them constantly as "Fulani herdsmen", you clearly cause some natural defence _ by Fulani individuals, or by herdsmen, or both (MAKH)  - of otherwise indefensible and outrage conduct. 

Unfortunately,   in Nigeria's toxic political environment, these particular dog whistle has become a latter day characterization of the armed wing of the feared "Hausa Fulani hegemony" which many of us in the South and Middle Beltran railed against in earlier decades.  That armed wing used to be the Military... The civilian ogre is now MAKH nationwide,  not even BH, which is confined to the NE.   

That Buhari is now President - that famed defender of yore of Fulani herdsmen before Oyo Governor Lamidi Adesina - - appears maddening to a core group of Nigerians.  His herdsmen mentality could not be used to prevent him in 2015... Should we not try again in 2019, beginning now?  Is the politicization of criminality - which led to the escalation of BH - once again rearing its ugly head through official inertia? 

Honestly, we need new thinking and language.  We must drop the etnicizatiin of criminality - whether pastoral-related killings, or cult- or politics related kidnappings, etc _ so that we undercut all their support oxygen. When criminals are caught and punished, we must ensure that no one begins to say "Oh, it us because they are Fulani, or Yoruba or Igbo, etc" because such characterizations weaken the resolve to go after the crime. 

And there you have it. 

Bolaji Aluko 

On Thursday, January 11, 2018, Jibrin Ibrahim <jibrinibrahim891@gmail.com> wrote:

What is happening to our intellectuals, how can a whole ethnic group be categorised as murderers. 

Professor Jibrin Ibrahim

Senior Fellow

Centre for Democracy and Development, Abuja

Follow me on twitter @jibrinibrahim17

On 11 January 2018 at 10:18, Femi Segun <soloruntoba@gmail.com> wrote:

Added to this spurious attempt to defend the indefensible is the recommendation in the panel report that grazing reserves should be carved out, more or less compulsorily. That option should not and cannot be an imposition, except of course we are saying, the murderers have more rights than the people that they have been killing. As Wole Soyinka said in his piece in the Punch of yesterday, the claim by the Inspector General of Police that the killing  was a product of  communal clashes, bespeaks shameful display of ignorance by a law enforcement officer of his rank. Communal clashes occur among neighbors, not between people who leave far apart.  Whether or not PMB is contesting in 2019, he needs to drop his toga of an ethnically and religiously biased posturing. Why on earth will he declare Operation Python and Operation Dance in the Southeast and South South without deeming fit to deploy Soldiers to the Middle Belt to stop these mindless killings? 

On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 12:46 AM, Moses Ebe Ochonu <meochonu@gmail.com> wrote:

But in Zamfara state, the killings are occuring between cattle rustlers and herders, both of whom are Fulani for the most part, the cattle rustlers sometimes being former herders and vice versa. It was only later that the crisis pitted some Fulani herders against non-Fulani communities as these communities began to take revenge indiscriminately against Fulani herders after their communities were attacked by the Fulani bandits.The president has largely solved that problem by inaugurating in the first few months of his tenure a military task force to deal with the issue in that axis extending all the way to Birnin Gwari in Kaduna State. Perhaps you need to give us the evidence of herdsmen being killed in Benue. Even Miyetti has not alleged killings in Benue; rather it claims that its members lost 1000 cattle to theft when they were migrating from Benue to Nasarawa state, and that the recent massacre was revenge for the loss of said cattle. I'm sure some herdsmen have lost their lives in the expanding collision between armed Bororo herders and farming communities across the country. However, only one group, the herdsmen, have a roving, armed militia that is killing and terrorizing people and sacking communities with impunity from Zamfara to Southern Kaduna, to Plateau, to Benue, to Enugu, to Kogi, Edo, and beyond. There is a pattern of nationwide terror for which the armed wings of Bororo herdsmen are responsible. That is a discernible pattern that should be recognized on its own terms without the forced narrative that killings are not one-sided. It does not help to construct false equalences or to manufacture claims about herdsmen killings that the herdsmen themselves have not made. The  herdsmen militia, mobile and murderous, are an existential threat to Nigeria. I hope Buhari wakes up from his nonchalance and deals with it as the national threat that it is. Jonathan was late to recognize the threat that Boko Haram posed to the nation and he paid a political price for it, not to mention the thousands of needless deaths that occurred as a result of his conspiracy-fueled tardiness. We do not help him recognize the threat when we throw out exculpatory and obfuscatory canards such as "the killings are not one-sided." A pattern of terror stalks the land, and it is traceable to one roving, murderous militia. Pointing to isolated, historically familiar, and sporadic incidents of mutual conflict between herdsmen and their sedentary hosts should not be advanced to take attention away from this national threat. That sporadic, familiar conflict has been with us for centuries and was never a problem until this strangely new group of Bororo herders decided to use brute force, backed by a well armed militia, to take grazing land from farming communities and to punish them when they would not yield.

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Jibrin Ibrahim <jibrinibrahim891@gmail.com> wrote:

In Zamfara State, a killer State, a killer squad has been killing Fulani pastoralists for the past two years and no one is talking about it. In Benue, the same thing has happened and I am told I can't say killing is done by both sides. Yes the media is heavily one-sided in its reporting and the Fulani story is not being told, and it should be. All killings are unacceptable, why can't we take this as a point of departure.

Professor Jibrin Ibrahim

Senior Fellow

Centre for Democracy and Development, Abuja

Follow me on twitter @jibrinibrahim17

On 10 January 2018 at 21:20, segun ogungbemi <seguno2013@gmail.com> wrote:

Legislative Solutions

"There are discordant laws and regulations that legislate livestock production and pastoralism at the regional, national and state levels. Some of the newly emerging laws such as the "anti-grazing" state laws appear to contradict the free movement principle enshrined in the Constitution."

I just want to comment on the above quotation. My response is that the idea of free movement is not elastic. You have freedom of movement insofar as  it does not enchroach on the right of others to personal property and protection of life. For instance,  if I invest in farming and my crops flourish and just before harvesting them a herdsman and his cows enchroach on the farm and destroy the crops,  the law does not permit the herdsman and his animals to violate my right to property. 

There is a mutual respect between one with  freedom and another with right. Each must know his limit to avoid unnessary  conflicts of interest. That is what is missing in both claims of freedom and right agents in Nigeria.

That is where National Orientation Agency and social media should try to educate the masses.   

Segun. 

On Jan 10, 2018 16:43, "Femi Segun" <soloruntoba@gmail.com> wrote:

Oga Toyin

I beg to differ. This position defeats  the pursuit of nation-building and societal harmony. We need an effective state and visionary leadership to manage the various centripetal and centrifugal forces. Saying we don't need them is an escapist answer. Damage has been done and still being done, but we cannot hands off in defeat.Many of us cried out last year  when some misguided youth gave ultimatum to the Igbos to leave the North. We must help this government to think right and act justly.

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 4:04 PM, Oluwatoyin Vincent Adepoju <toyin.adepoju@gmail.com> wrote:

The Fulani herdsmen problem is the work of a group of terrorists trying to obtain other people's land through massacre.

Please stay in your region with your cows.

We dont need them.

toyion

On 9 January 2018 at 21:50, Jibrin Ibrahim <jibrinibrahim891@gmail.com> wrote:

Please note that the killing is not one sided as is often reported in the press. Militia groups have emerged to kill herdsmen and they are having a lot of success. Ranches is very misunderstood concept and only operates in thinly populated dry lands where a lot of land can be allocated to cattle owners, thats not our situation. The issue has become very emotive and objective discussion has become difficult but we are trying to do just that.

Professor Jibrin Ibrahim

Senior Fellow

Centre for Democracy and Development, Abuja

Follow me on twitter @jibrinibrahim17

On 9 January 2018 at 14:50, Femi Segun <soloruntoba@gmail.com> wrote:

Much as one should commend the efforts of the panel members who put up this report, I hasten to say that it is very cosmetic and somehow apologetic of a certain interest-the interest of the Pastoralists. One would have expected that a panel that is made up of such experts should go as far as recommending restorative  justice for the families of thousands that have been killed by the Pastoralists. I read an article in the Punch today, where the leader of the Myetti Allah in Benue State said his group had to kill 25 human beings because 1000 cows were stolen. Has life become so cheap as to be trading human lives for cows? Ideally, reports of this  nature should  have inputs from all the parties that have been affected by the ongoing conflicts in one way or the other. Several arguments have been put out there on the imperative of having cattle ranches. Even though this was mentioned in the report, it is obvious that the preference is the continuation of the current order of moving cattle from the North to the South-with all the consequences. This preference was presented as if it is law, that cannot be challenged. In a plural society like ours, such proclivity can be interpreted to mean an expression  of superiority of one group over another. Can we claim to be a member of the  civilised world if we lack the courage to say or do  what is obtainable in other civilised societies? To what extent can a farmer from Ekiti or Umuahia be allowed to take over land by the force of arms in Sokoto or Kaduna in the name of constitutional provision of freedom of movement? In order to forestall the worsening of the violence and other social consequences that the report rightly highlighted, I will suggest that the recommendations should be rethought and redrafted to acknowledge the pain that those who have needlessly suffered loss of lives are going through and proffer solutions to alleviating such pains in form of compensations. The Government should also stop the current  parochial approach to a festering national sore by developing the courage to apprehend, try in the court of law and punish people who murder human beings  in exchange for cows. Methink there are laws that cover stealing in Nigeria. Those who are found to have stolen cows should also be tried and given just sentence. Additionally, the hard option of cattle ranches should be pursued rather than hiding under the constitution to justify the wanton destruction of lives and livelihood of farmers, across the country. This report falls short of expectations in terms of providing intellectual leadership on nation building and cohesion, especially coming from such a distinguished panel. 

Samuel

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 12:41 PM, Jibrin Ibrahim <jibrinibrahim891@gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

Pastoralist-Farmers Conflicts and the Search for Peaceful Resolution

 

Memorandum by the Nigerian Working Group on Peace Building and Governance

 

Abuja, 8^th January 2018

 

Executive Summary

Pastoralists-farmers' conflicts in Nigeria have grown, spread and intensified over the past decade and today poses a threat to national survival. Thousands of people have been killed, communities have been destroyed and so many farmers and pastoralists have lost their lives and property in an orgy of killings and destruction that is not only destroying livelihoods but also affecting national cohesion. Nigeria has about 19 million cattle much of it in the hands of pastoralists and we need to seek solutions to the problem of pastoralism while resolving the problem of insecurity that has arisen.

 

The Problem

Nigeria's population has grown from 33 million in 1950 to about 192.3 million today. This phenomenal increase of the population has put enormous pressure on land and water resources used by farmers and pastoralists. One of the outcomes of this process has been the blockage of transhumance routes and loss of grazing land to agricultural expansion and the increased southward movement of pastoralists has led to increased conflict with local communities. This is particularly the case in the Middle Belt – notably in Plateau, Kaduna, Niger, Nassarawa, Benue, Taraba, and Adamawa States. The conflicts primarily involve Fulani pastoralists and local farming communities. As violence between herdsmen and farmers has grown and developed into criminality and rural banditry, popular narratives in the form of hate speech have exacerbated the crisis.

 

Grazing Reserves As Possible Solution

It is clear that Nigeria and indeed Africa have to plan towards the transformation of pastoralism into settled forms of animal husbandry. The establishment of grazing reserves provides the opportunity for practicing a more limited form of pastoralism and is therefore a pathway towards a more settled form of animal husbandry. Nigeria has a total of 417 grazing reserves out of which only about 113 have been gazetted. Whether we support or oppose pastoralism, it is clear that at least in the short and medium term, many herds must continue to practice seasonal migration between dry and wet season grazing areas. Ultimately, there is the need for permanent settlement of pastoralists.

 

The Law, Politics and Pastoralism

One of the greatest difficulties in addressing and resolving issues surrounding pastoralism is the politicisation of legal regimes and the blockages to the enactment of or implementation of laws that can redress the key challenges posed. In 2016 for example, a bill was proposed - ''A Bill for an Act to establish Grazing Reserve in each of the states of the Federation Nigeria to improve agriculture yield from livestock farming and curb incessant conflicts between cattle farmers and crop farmers in Nigeria'' was thrown out. There is an emerging conflict between the constitutional principle on free movement of persons and goods and laws emerging in some States restricting movement. Some States have enacted laws or are processing bills to prevent open grazing on their territory. There are four initiatives so far in Benue, Ekiti, Taraba and Edo States. Could such laws be effective in prohibiting pastoralism, which is practiced by millions of Nigerians?

 

Developing a Comprehensive Policy Framework

A new policy framework on the farmers-pastoralists crisis should be developed that is both comprehensive and mutually beneficial to both groups. An inter-ministerial committee should be constituted with experts and stakeholder membership to draw up the framework. There must be a consultative process that listens to the concerns of all stakeholders in developing the new framework so that the outcome would have national ownership. Pastoralism is not sustainable in Nigeria over the long term due to high population growth rate, expansion of farming and loss of pasture and cattle routes. At the same time, pastoralism cannot end or be prohibited in the short term, as there are strong cultural and political economy reasons for its existence. The new policy should develop a plan for a transitional period during which new systems would be put in place. The framework should map out the duration, strategy and timelines for the transition plan. Finally, a comprehensive approach to address the growing crisis associated with violence affecting pastoralism and farmers in Nigeria is necessary.

Introduction

Pastoralists-farmers' conflicts in Nigeria have grown, spread and intensified over the past decade and today poses a threat to national survival. Thousands of people have been killed, communities have been destroyed and so many farmers and pastoralists have lost their lives and property in an orgy of killings and destruction that is not only destroying livelihoods but also affecting national cohesion. Each day, we witness more reprisal killings that are simply making the possibilities of peaceful resolution more difficult. Rural banditry is becoming the norm in the Nigerian hinterland and has been transformed into a vicious criminal activity. The result is that the scale of loss of both herds and human life has been escalating and the victims are on all sides – subsistence farmers, commercial farmers and pastoralists. Nonetheless, we write this memo to say we cannot give up to hate and destruction, let's pause, reflect and seek a way out of the crisis.

 

Nigeria has a large pastoral population the logic of whose livelihood is often misunderstood. What is better understood is the culture of farming, which is rooted in a specific location and has activities that take place regularly. The assumption that pastoralism is in itself an irrational production system is far from the truth. Pastoralism is the main livestock production system in much of Africa where pastoralists live in semi arid zones. It is a historically developed strategy to cope with the uncertainties associated with climate change, build up of parasites and other related challenges. It is above all an efficient way to produce livestock at relatively low prices through the use of non-commercial feeding stock. Historically, pastoralists have been able to meet the meat demand in West Africa with a relatively high level of efficiency without government subsidy for generations.

Different methods through the use of farm residue and open range grazing has allowed this trend to flourish. Nigeria has a landmass of 98.3 million hectares, 82 million hectares of arable land of which about 34 million hectares are currently under cultivation. In crop farming, human beings only directly utilize about a quarter of the total biomass. The other three quarters is in the form of crop residue and low quality crop, which is not directly useful to people. It is this residue that cattle (ruminants) convert into meat and milk. In addition to this, cattle also utilize grasses on fallow lands, non-arable poor quality lands, open ranges and fadama in the same manner. Pastoralists move their animals to these locations to access these opportunities. This system of production is breaking down today as violent conflicts between pastoralists and farmers have arisen and created a major national crisis.

The Problem

Nigeria's population has grown from 33 million in 1950 to about 192.3 million today. The United Nations recently projected more growth in terms of population in the coming years, 364 million in 2030 and 480 million in 2050 respectively. This phenomenal increase of the population has put enormous pressure on land and water resources used by farmers and pastoralists. Specifically, the demographic increase has led to an expansion in cultivated farmland and a reduction in available grazing land for pastoralists that is characterised by competition over dwindling resources. In the far north, the impact of desertification as well as the crisis of energy, which has resulted in deforestation, coupled with climatic uncertainty and lower rainfall have made it more difficult to sustain increasing populations, pushing many farmers and pastoralists with livestock southwards. This has happened gradually over a period of decades – with an apparent increase over the past decade – and has added to pressure on land and water in central and southern Nigeria.

 

One of the outcomes of this process has been the blockage of transhumance routes and loss of grazing land to agricultural expansion and the increased southward movement of pastoralists has led to increased conflict with local communities. This is particularly the case in the Middle Belt – notably in Plateau, Kaduna, Niger, Nassarawa, Benue, Taraba, and Adamawa States. The conflicts often have localised dynamics, but primarily involve Fulani pastoralists and local farming communities.

 

The Nigerian state has a relatively weak rural presence and has neglected the agrarian sector since the 1970s, when oil revenues began to dominate the economy. There have been few improvements in agricultural productivity and livestock production as a result of the dependence on oil revenues, which have not been reinvested in productive economic activities. State response in the context of the lingering conflicts between farmers and pastoralists has been both ad hoc and reactive, with no concrete and sustainable strategies for conflict management and peace building beyond the deployment of security or establishment of commissions of inquiries. One of the key pathways here is for the state to be more proactive in its responses by putting in place mechanisms that are institutionalised and sustainable both at the local and state levels.

 

As violence between herdsmen and farmers has grown and developed into criminality and rural banditry, popular narratives creating meaning, context and (mis) understandings have been emerging. The narratives emerging on rural banditry in the media and in popular discourse are becoming part of the drivers for expanding conflicts in the country. The protagonists in this saga are often presented as being nomadic Fulani cattle herders, who are mostly Muslims, and sedentary farmer communities of several other ethnic extractions, who are often, but not always non-Muslims. These two distinct groups are usually depicted as perpetrators and victims, respectively. Perspectives of the social, religious and ethnic characteristics of these rural communities are framed into expansive essentialist discourses that actively breed and sustain suspicion and distrust. The result is negative stereotyping between "the one" and "the other" that lead further to ethnic and religious bigotry which fuels the hate process, culminating in further chains of attacks and counter or revenge attacks being exchanged between these different groups. Nigeria urgently needs to find pathways to get out of the crisis and one approach may be the development of grazing reserves for pastoralists.

 

Grazing Reserves As Possible Solution

It is clear that Nigeria and indeed Africa have to plan towards the transformation of pastoralism into settled forms of animal husbandry. The establishment of grazing reserves provides the opportunity for practicing a more limited form of pastoralism and is therefore a pathway towards a more settled form of animal husbandry. Grazing reserves are areas of land demarcated, set aside and reserved for exclusive or semi-exclusive use by pastoralists. Currently, Nigeria has a total of 417 grazing reserves all over the country, out of which only about 113 have been gazetted. There are many problems facing the implementation of the provisions of the 1965 Grazing Reserve Law and the management of the established grazing reserves. First, most of the grazing reserves were established by the then Northern Regional Government. Since the 1970's subsequent military and civilian governments have in effect abandoned the policy of establishing and developing grazing reserves. Secondly, State governments have not been diligent in sustaining previous policies and have not surveyed and gazetted most of the designated grazing reserves. Indeed, only 113 (about 27%) of the 417 proposed grazing reserves have been gazetted.

 

Whether we support or oppose pastoralism, it is clear that at least in the short and medium term, many herds must continue to practice seasonal migration between dry and wet season grazing areas, incorporating past harvest grazing farmland in the highly developed and ecologically sound pattern of transhumance evolved by the pastoralist over the centuries. This is an important point to make at this point when many political actors think it is possible to simply and abruptly ban open grazing. There is indeed, the need for permanent settlement of pastoralists both in the far north and semi humid zone of the middle belt. It is important to focus on the development of grazing reserves as part of the solution.

 

The Law, Politics and Pastoralism

One of the greatest difficulties in addressing and resolving issues surrounding pastoralism is the politicisation of legal regimes and the blockages to the enactment of or implementation of laws that can redress the key challenges posed. In 2016 for example, a bill was proposed - ''A Bill for an Act to establish Grazing Reserve in each of the states of the Federation Nigeria to improve agriculture yield from livestock farming and curb incessant conflicts between cattle farmers and crop farmers in Nigeria.'' The National Assembly on the basis that the Bill appeared to be seeking to favour one particular profession carried out by mainly one ethnic group, the Fulani, threw it out. The problem is that if we cannot have grazing reserves and if pastoralists cannot move, how do we expect the 19 million cattle grazing in the country to survive and how do we protect our Constitutional principle of free movement.

 

Free Movement and Restrictions to Transhumance

There is an emerging conflict between the constitutional principle on free movement of persons and goods and laws emerging in some States restricting movement. In Section 41(1) of the Nigerian Constitution, it is stated that:

 

''Every citizen of Nigeria is entitled to move freely throughout Nigeria and to reside in any part thereof, and no citizen of Nigeria shall be expelled from Nigeria or refused entry thereby or exit therefrom.''

 

Some States have enacted laws or are processing bills to prevent open grazing on their territory. There are four initiatives so far:

 

1.

--

Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Toyin Vincent Adepoju:

Please don't add misrepresentation - a euphemism either for untruth or lies - to hysteria.  

My position has always been to point to the illogicality of herdsmen -  Fulani or otherwise - who depend on the living to but their cows for food or leather - to mass-kill their customers as they roam from town to town!   I have never supported begat I've or positive attributions to while groups of people, because that is the very definition of racism  - and too many Nigerians are openly racist, even as they trumpet how great their in ethnic group is, while denigrating others. 

You are now advancing the age-old Sardinia alleged  theory of Fulani  dipping the Koran into the sea through a gradual creation of geographical beach heads, in the Middle Belt, SE and SW?  

Really?  How come you know this ingenious device and no one else?  Where is this dossier? 

And now that we know - and since we cannot do without beef and leather - why don't Middle Belters s and other non-Fulani create ranches and cow colonies, populate these  themselves to undercut this insidious plan? 

Of course, you have always opposed Buhari's political ascendancy, but that is the topic of another Symposium.... Or is it the same Symposium? 

Bolaji Aluko 

On Thursday, January 11, 2018, Oluwatoyin Vincent Adepoju <toyin.adepoju@gmail.com> wrote:

Mobolaji Aluko:

Great new yer to you.

It is gratifying to see even you agree at last we have a large scale problem when your previous stance was that too much was being made out of isolated skirmishes.

The only solution being preferred by the terrorists and their representatives is that they must be given free land across Nigeria.

If you know of any other solution they offer, please educate us.

They refuse to build ranches in their own territory. The preferred method is to compel agreement to their demands through making rivers of blood.

Great thanks

toyin

On 11 January 2018 at 18:03, Mobolaji Aluko <alukome@gmail.com> wrote:

Toyin Vincent Adepoju:

Happy New Year! 

Since you are so absolutely sure of the identity and supporters of these criminals, and yet feel hopelessly powerless in contributing to stopping the criminality,  all we can beg you and similar position holders for is patience, so that both Fulani and non-Fulani stakeholders, intellectuaal and otherwise, can (try to) solve the problem? 

Thanks a bunch. 

Bolaji Aluko 

On Thursday, January 11, 2018, Oluwatoyin Vincent Adepoju <toyin.adepoju@gmail.com> wrote:

The sad truth is that this war is being fought exclusively by members of a particular ethnic group, with the connivance of politicians of same ethnicity agst the rest of Nigeria.

Those who can should stop the Fulani militants from killing other Nigerians and save us the rivers of blood and intellectual hair splitting.

toyin

On 11 January 2018 at 17:21, Jibrin Ibrahim <jibrinibrahim891@gmail.com> wrote:

Bolaji

You are absolutely right that the ethnic labels are neither accurate nor a description of what is going on. There is new research by CERDDERT in Zaria that is drawing attention to the underlying reality, the emergence of numerous well armed criminal gangs some ethnic, others multiethnic that are the key actors in the killings and both farming and pastoralists are victims. These criminal groups are straddling between cattle rustling and kidnapping in addition to terrorising communities and we should look at some of these dynamics. I have asked A. S, Mohammed to prepare a summary of their findings which I will distribute.

Moses, Bororo has been the term used for Fulani pastoralists all along and what is new is the phenomenon of these well armed criminal gangs.

Professor Jibrin Ibrahim

Senior Fellow

Centre for Democracy and Development, Abuja

Follow me on twitter @jibrinibrahim17

On 11 January 2018 at 16:36, Moses Ebe Ochonu <meochonu@gmail.com> wrote:

Oga Falola,

You have raised very important appendices to this conversation. While we wait for Jibo's response, let me chime in with my thoughts.

There is indeed a fear of the Fulani, which is both political and existential. This has always been part of Nigeria's tripodal politics of mutual ethnic suspicions. The narrative of a domineering Fulani hegemony has always been a trope of Southern Nigerian and Middle Belt political discourse. Some of the suspicion is real and some of it is grounded in fiction and unfounded fear. I suspect that some of may be be strategic. There is also a rather visceral hostility and suspicion of the Fulani in some quarters. This is largely a politically-driven antipathy. 

There is however genuine outrage at the menace of armed herdsmen militias. Unfortunately, in the current climate, it is difficult to tell the former from the latter as they have overlapped and seeped into each other. That is one of the negative consequences of the incessant, largely ignored killings by these militia. Genuine angst agains the killings have sometimes meshed with a more primordial and political distrust of herdsmen and their non-nomadic Fulani kinsmen. It is quite unfortunate.

It is also unfortunate but hardly surprising that the conversation has morphed into a familiar and rather cliched anti-Fulani rhetoric and the promotion of certain political pathologies about the Fulani as hegemonic and domineering. This is one of the reasons that some of us had been restrained from commenting. If you express outrage at the killings, those who harbor an ethnic or political animus against the Fulani as an ethnic group could latch onto what you say to further their agenda. But you cannot keep quiet when mass murders are being committed on a vast scale.

For starters, it is important to point out that not all Fulani are herdsmen or pastoralists. In fact I would say that MOST Fulani, at least in Nigeria, are not nomadic herdsmen. I attended secondary school in Yola, Adamawa State and it doesn't get more Fulani that Yola. Yet most Fulani in Yola and even in the larger Adamawa State are not nomadic herders. Most of them are actually sedentary farmers and traders and settled herders--or ranchers in the prevailing lingo. So, the ethnicization of this conversation is misleading, and the extension of the culpability of the armed herdsmen killers to all Fulani is wrong.

Even among Fulani herdsmen, a fine-grained distinction needs to be made. We all grew up with nomadic Fulani herders in our communities and consumed their dairy products, which we obtained sometimes by battering grains and other items that they needed. They were largely peaceful. They respected the host communities. Whenever their cattle transgressed in farmlands, they obeyed local traditional authorities and paid compensation. When they felt aggrieved by members of host communities, they approached the local authorities for redress. This still happens with some nomadic herders.

What has changed?

What has changed is that, there is a new group (a sub-group, if you will) of herders who have broken this unwritten rule governing relations between herders and farmers. They no longer respect local constituted authorities and have no respect for farmers or their crops in host communities. They are also armed and ready to use these arms to enforce their will and desires on host communities and to kill and sack communities if and when challenged. Needless to say that this small group of ultra-aggressive and violent herdsmen that many now call the Bororo has made life difficult for the nomadic and semi-nomadic herdsmen that many communities across the country have been familiar with for decades if not centuries. Through their mass murders and other heinous acts, they have given a bad name to all herders and helped create a negative stereotype of herders as mass murderers, rapists, and terrorists. It is this stereotype that is now being mobilized mischievously by some people to reinforce previously existing political suspicions of the Fulani ethnic group as a whole.

I was discussing with a member of this list from Kwara state who told me that in his hometow, people are now scared to go to farms after recent incidents of violence and killings of farmers by armed herdsmen. His story is quite emblematic of what is going on across the country. His hometown, a Muslim kingdom with an emir, has, for centuries, welcomed and hosted nomadic Fulani groups, trading with them, interacting with them, and in some cases even intermarrying with them. So deep and historical are these relations that some of the Fulani have now actually settled with their cattle on the outskirts of the community and for all practical purposes have become a part of its fabric. Recently, however, this picture was shattered when a new group of nomadic Fulani herdsmen arrived in the area armed with sophisticated weapons and, unlike previous groups nomads, began aggressively and recklessly encroaching on farms and killing local farmers who challenged them. The most telling aspect of this story is that these armed nomadic killers have not spared the settled and semi-settled Fulani nomadic communities in the area. These new, aggressive and armed nomads have killed local nomads and sacked Fulani settlements in the area as well, sending shockwaves through the entire community, with both Fulani and non-Fulani running for their lives. When my friend asked his people who these new Fulani nomads are, he was told that both his people and the older, largely peaceful Fulani communities in the area call the new, violent nomads Bororo, clearly a term to differentiate them from the other Fulani nomadic groups that have been coexisting with the people of the area for centuries.

My point in telling this story is to yet again underscore the unhelpfulness of generalization and to reinforce the distinctions that must be made among the Fulani and also among the pastoral herdsmen as a way of isolating and defining the identity and character of the mass killers and terrorists who pose a clear threat to the nation.

The danger of ethnicization and generalization is that we will lose allies among the sedentary Fulani and among Fulani intellectuals and aristocrats, who share ethnic affinity with both groups of herdsmen and would resist a quest for solutions that unfairly castigates and stereotypes the Fulani as an ethnic group. The other downside of course is that such an approach is unfair to the historical Fulani nomadic groups whose descendants continue to desire peaceful coexistence with host communities and have at times, as the case I narrated shows, become victims of the killer herdsmen. This victimhood is not just in having their cattle rustled or in being killed by their armed and violent Fulani nomadic kinsmen. It is also in the fact that, unfortunately, the murderous activities of the armed herdsmen militia have destroyed the trust between host communities and historical, largely peaceful Fulani nomadic and semi-nomadic groups. 

This is precisely the reason why, if I were Fulani, whether I'm a nomad or not, I would support the effort to isolate the Bororo mass murderous and deal decisively with them. I would not want my reputation and ethnicity sullied and subjected further to the kind of castigation, negative stereotyping, and suspicions that you outlined above in your questions to Jibrin.

On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 9:26 AM, Mobolaji Aluko <alukome@gmail.com> wrote:

Jibrin:

This question is really what I cannot understand.  Why put an ethnic label on murderers _ Fulani - , or even a trade label on them - herdsmen - when not only do I  know many Fulani who are neither herdsmen or murderers, but many herdsmen who are also not Fulani or murderers! 

By labeling them constantly as "Fulani herdsmen", you clearly cause some natural defence _ by Fulani individuals, or by herdsmen, or both (MAKH)  - of otherwise indefensible and outrage conduct. 

Unfortunately,   in Nigeria's toxic political environment, these particular dog whistle has become a latter day characterization of the armed wing of the feared "Hausa Fulani hegemony" which many of us in the South and Middle Beltran railed against in earlier decades.  That armed wing used to be the Military... The civilian ogre is now MAKH nationwide,  not even BH, which is confined to the NE.   

That Buhari is now President - that famed defender of yore of Fulani herdsmen before Oyo Governor Lamidi Adesina - - appears maddening to a core group of Nigerians.  His herdsmen mentality could not be used to prevent him in 2015... Should we not try again in 2019, beginning now?  Is the politicization of criminality - which led to the escalation of BH - once again rearing its ugly head through official inertia? 

Honestly, we need new thinking and language.  We must drop the etnicizatiin of criminality - whether pastoral-related killings, or cult- or politics related kidnappings, etc _ so that we undercut all their support oxygen. When criminals are caught and punished, we must ensure that no one begins to say "Oh, it us because they are Fulani, or Yoruba or Igbo, etc" because such characterizations weaken the resolve to go after the crime. 

And there you have it. 

Bolaji Aluko 

On Thursday, January 11, 2018, Jibrin Ibrahim <jibrinibrahim891@gmail.com> wrote:

What is happening to our intellectuals, how can a whole ethnic group be categorised as murderers. 

Professor Jibrin Ibrahim

Senior Fellow

Centre for Democracy and Development, Abuja

Follow me on twitter @jibrinibrahim17

On 11 January 2018 at 10:18, Femi Segun <soloruntoba@gmail.com> wrote:

Added to this spurious attempt to defend the indefensible is the recommendation in the panel report that grazing reserves should be carved out, more or less compulsorily. That option should not and cannot be an imposition, except of course we are saying, the murderers have more rights than the people that they have been killing. As Wole Soyinka said in his piece in the Punch of yesterday, the claim by the Inspector General of Police that the killing  was a product of  communal clashes, bespeaks shameful display of ignorance by a law enforcement officer of his rank. Communal clashes occur among neighbors, not between people who leave far apart.  Whether or not PMB is contesting in 2019, he needs to drop his toga of an ethnically and religiously biased posturing. Why on earth will he declare Operation Python and Operation Dance in the Southeast and South South without deeming fit to deploy Soldiers to the Middle Belt to stop these mindless killings? 

On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 12:46 AM, Moses Ebe Ochonu <meochonu@gmail.com> wrote:

But in Zamfara state, the killings are occuring between cattle rustlers and herders, both of whom are Fulani for the most part, the cattle rustlers sometimes being former herders and vice versa. It was only later that the crisis pitted some Fulani herders against non-Fulani communities as these communities began to take revenge indiscriminately against Fulani herders after their communities were attacked by the Fulani bandits.The president has largely solved that problem by inaugurating in the first few months of his tenure a military task force to deal with the issue in that axis extending all the way to Birnin Gwari in Kaduna State. Perhaps you need to give us the evidence of herdsmen being killed in Benue. Even Miyetti has not alleged killings in Benue; rather it claims that its members lost 1000 cattle to theft when they were migrating from Benue to Nasarawa state, and that the recent massacre was revenge for the loss of said cattle. I'm sure some herdsmen have lost their lives in the expanding collision between armed Bororo herders and farming communities across the country. However, only one group, the herdsmen, have a roving, armed militia that is killing and terrorizing people and sacking communities with impunity from Zamfara to Southern Kaduna, to Plateau, to Benue, to Enugu, to Kogi, Edo, and beyond. There is a pattern of nationwide terror for which the armed wings of Bororo herdsmen are responsible. That is a discernible pattern that should be recognized on its own terms without the forced narrative that killings are not one-sided. It does not help to construct false equalences or to manufacture claims about herdsmen killings that the herdsmen themselves have not made. The  herdsmen militia, mobile and murderous, are an existential threat to Nigeria. I hope Buhari wakes up from his nonchalance and deals with it as the national threat that it is. Jonathan was late to recognize the threat that Boko Haram posed to the nation and he paid a political price for it, not to mention the thousands of needless deaths that occurred as a result of his conspiracy-fueled tardiness. We do not help him recognize the threat when we throw out exculpatory and obfuscatory canards such as "the killings are not one-sided." A pattern of terror stalks the land, and it is traceable to one roving, murderous militia. Pointing to isolated, historically familiar, and sporadic incidents of mutual conflict between herdsmen and their sedentary hosts should not be advanced to take attention away from this national threat. That sporadic, familiar conflict has been with us for centuries and was never a problem until this strangely new group of Bororo herders decided to use brute force, backed by a well armed militia, to take grazing land from farming communities and to punish them when they would not yield.

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Jibrin Ibrahim <jibrinibrahim891@gmail.com> wrote:

In Zamfara State, a killer State, a killer squad has been killing Fulani pastoralists for the past two years and no one is talking about it. In Benue, the same thing has happened and I am told I can't say killing is done by both sides. Yes the media is heavily one-sided in its reporting and the Fulani story is not being told, and it should be. All killings are unacceptable, why can't we take this as a point of departure.

Professor Jibrin Ibrahim

Senior Fellow

Centre for Democracy and Development, Abuja

Follow me on twitter @jibrinibrahim17

On 10 January 2018 at 21:20, segun ogungbemi <seguno2013@gmail.com> wrote:

Legislative Solutions

"There are discordant laws and regulations that legislate livestock production and pastoralism at the regional, national and state levels. Some of the newly emerging laws such as the "anti-grazing" state laws appear to contradict the free movement principle enshrined in the Constitution."

I just want to comment on the above quotation. My response is that the idea of free movement is not elastic. You have freedom of movement insofar as  it does not enchroach on the right of others to personal property and protection of life. For instance,  if I invest in farming and my crops flourish and just before harvesting them a herdsman and his cows enchroach on the farm and destroy the crops,  the law does not permit the herdsman and his animals to violate my right to property. 

There is a mutual respect between one with  freedom and another with right. Each must know his limit to avoid unnessary  conflicts of interest. That is what is missing in both claims of freedom and right agents in Nigeria.

That is where National Orientation Agency and social media should try to educate the masses.   

Segun. 

On Jan 10, 2018 16:43, "Femi Segun" <soloruntoba@gmail.com> wrote:

Oga Toyin

I beg to differ. This position defeats  the pursuit of nation-building and societal harmony. We need an effective state and visionary leadership to manage the various centripetal and centrifugal forces. Saying we don't need them is an escapist answer. Damage has been done and still being done, but we cannot hands off in defeat.Many of us cried out last year  when some misguided youth gave ultimatum to the Igbos to leave the North. We must help this government to think right and act justly.

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 4:04 PM, Oluwatoyin Vincent Adepoju <toyin.adepoju@gmail.com> wrote:

The Fulani herdsmen problem is the work of a group of terrorists trying to obtain other people's land through massacre.

Please stay in your region with your cows.

We dont need them.

toyion

On 9 January 2018 at 21:50, Jibrin Ibrahim <jibrinibrahim891@gmail.com> wrote:

Please note that the killing is not one sided as is often reported in the press. Militia groups have emerged to kill herdsmen and they are having a lot of success. Ranches is very misunderstood concept and only operates in thinly populated dry lands where a lot of land can be allocated to cattle owners, thats not our situation. The issue has become very emotive and objective discussion has become difficult but we are trying to do just that.

Professor Jibrin Ibrahim

Senior Fellow

Centre for Democracy and Development, Abuja

Follow me on twitter @jibrinibrahim17

On 9 January 2018 at 14:50, Femi Segun <soloruntoba@gmail.com> wrote:

Much as one should commend the efforts of the panel members who put up this report, I hasten to say that it is very cosmetic and somehow apologetic of a certain interest-the interest of the Pastoralists. One would have expected that a panel that is made up of such experts should go as far as recommending restorative  justice for the families of thousands that have been killed by the Pastoralists. I read an article in the Punch today, where the leader of the Myetti Allah in Benue State said his group had to kill 25 human beings because 1000 cows were stolen. Has life become so cheap as to be trading human lives for cows? Ideally, reports of this  nature should  have inputs from all the parties that have been affected by the ongoing conflicts in one way or the other. Several arguments have been put out there on the imperative of having cattle ranches. Even though this was mentioned in the report, it is obvious that the preference is the continuation of the current order of moving cattle from the North to the South-with all the consequences. This preference was presented as if it is law, that cannot be challenged. In a plural society like ours, such proclivity can be interpreted to mean an expression  of superiority of one group over another. Can we claim to be a member of the  civilised world if we lack the courage to say or do  what is obtainable in other civilised societies? To what extent can a farmer from Ekiti or Umuahia be allowed to take over land by the force of arms in Sokoto or Kaduna in the name of constitutional provision of freedom of movement? In order to forestall the worsening of the violence and other social consequences that the report rightly highlighted, I will suggest that the recommendations should be rethought and redrafted to acknowledge the pain that those who have needlessly suffered loss of lives are going through and proffer solutions to alleviating such pains in form of compensations. The Government should also stop the current  parochial approach to a festering national sore by developing the courage to apprehend, try in the court of law and punish people who murder human beings  in exchange for cows. Methink there are laws that cover stealing in Nigeria. Those who are found to have stolen cows should also be tried and given just sentence. Additionally, the hard option of cattle ranches should be pursued rather than hiding under the constitution to justify the wanton destruction of lives and livelihood of farmers, across the country. This report falls short of expectations in terms of providing intellectual leadership on nation building and cohesion, especially coming from such a distinguished panel. 

Samuel

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 12:41 PM, Jibrin Ibrahim <jibrinibrahim891@gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

Pastoralist-Farmers Conflicts and the Search for Peaceful Resolution

 

Memorandum by the Nigerian Working Group on Peace Building and Governance

 

Abuja, 8^th January 2018

 

Executive Summary

Pastoralists-farmers' conflicts in Nigeria have grown, spread and intensified over the past decade and today poses a threat to national survival. Thousands of people have been killed, communities have been destroyed and so many farmers and pastoralists have lost their lives and property in an orgy of killings and destruction that is not only destroying livelihoods but also affecting national cohesion. Nigeria has about 19 million cattle much of it in the hands of pastoralists and we need to seek solutions to the problem of pastoralism while resolving the problem of insecurity that has arisen.

 

The Problem

Nigeria's population has grown from 33 million in 1950 to about 192.3 million today. This phenomenal increase of the population has put enormous pressure on land and water resources used by farmers and pastoralists. One of the outcomes of this process has been the blockage of transhumance routes and loss of grazing land to agricultural expansion and the increased southward movement of pastoralists has led to increased conflict with local communities. This is particularly the case in the Middle Belt – notably in Plateau, Kaduna, Niger, Nassarawa, Benue, Taraba, and Adamawa States. The conflicts primarily involve Fulani pastoralists and local farming communities. As violence between herdsmen and farmers has grown and developed into criminality and rural banditry, popular narratives in the form of hate speech have exacerbated the crisis.

 

Grazing Reserves As Possible Solution

It is clear that Nigeria and indeed Africa have to plan towards the transformation of pastoralism into settled forms of animal husbandry. The establishment of grazing reserves provides the opportunity for practicing a more limited form of pastoralism and is therefore a pathway towards a more settled form of animal husbandry. Nigeria has a total of 417 grazing reserves out of which only about 113 have been gazetted. Whether we support or oppose pastoralism, it is clear that at least in the short and medium term, many herds must continue to practice seasonal migration between dry and wet season grazing areas. Ultimately, there is the need for permanent settlement of pastoralists.

 

The Law, Politics and Pastoralism

One of the greatest difficulties in addressing and resolving issues surrounding pastoralism is the politicisation of legal regimes and the blockages to the enactment of or implementation of laws that can redress the key challenges posed. In 2016 for example, a bill was proposed - ''A Bill for an Act to establish Grazing Reserve in each of the states of the Federation Nigeria to improve agriculture yield from livestock farming and curb incessant conflicts between cattle farmers and crop farmers in Nigeria'' was thrown out. There is an emerging conflict between the constitutional principle on free movement of persons and goods and laws emerging in some States restricting movement. Some States have enacted laws or are processing bills to prevent open grazing on their territory. There are four initiatives so far in Benue, Ekiti, Taraba and Edo States. Could such laws be effective in prohibiting pastoralism, which is practiced by millions of Nigerians?

 

Developing a Comprehensive Policy Framework

A new policy framework on the farmers-pastoralists crisis should be developed that is both comprehensive and mutually beneficial to both groups. An inter-ministerial committee should be constituted with experts and stakeholder membership to draw up the framework. There must be a consultative process that listens to the concerns of all stakeholders in developing the new framework so that the outcome would have national ownership. Pastoralism is not sustainable in Nigeria over the long term due to high population growth rate, expansion of farming and loss of pasture and cattle routes. At the same time, pastoralism cannot end or be prohibited in the short term, as there are strong cultural and political economy reasons for its existence. The new policy should develop a plan for a transitional period during which new systems would be put in place. The framework should map out the duration, strategy and timelines for the transition plan. Finally, a comprehensive approach to address the growing crisis associated with violence affecting pastoralism and farmers in Nigeria is necessary.

Introduction

Pastoralists-farmers' conflicts in Nigeria have grown, spread and intensified over the past decade and today poses a threat to national survival. Thousands of people have been killed, communities have been destroyed and so many farmers and pastoralists have lost their lives and property in an orgy of killings and destruction that is not only destroying livelihoods but also affecting national cohesion. Each day, we witness more reprisal killings that are simply making the possibilities of peaceful resolution more difficult. Rural banditry is becoming the norm in the Nigerian hinterland and has been transformed into a vicious criminal activity. The result is that the scale of loss of both herds and human life has been escalating and the victims are on all sides – subsistence farmers, commercial farmers and pastoralists. Nonetheless, we write this memo to say we cannot give up to hate and destruction, let's pause, reflect and seek a way out of the crisis.

 

Nigeria has a large pastoral population the logic of whose livelihood is often misunderstood. What is better understood is the culture of farming, which is rooted in a specific location and has activities that take place regularly. The assumption that pastoralism is in itself an irrational production system is far from the truth. Pastoralism is the main livestock production system in much of Africa where pastoralists live in semi arid zones. It is a historically developed strategy to cope with the uncertainties associated with climate change, build up of parasites and other related challenges. It is above all an efficient way to produce livestock at relatively low prices through the use of non-commercial feeding stock. Historically, pastoralists have been able to meet the meat demand in West Africa with a relatively high level of efficiency without government subsidy for generations.

Different methods through the use of farm residue and open range grazing has allowed this trend to flourish. Nigeria has a landmass of 98.3 million hectares, 82 million hectares of arable land of which about 34 million hectares are currently under cultivation. In crop farming, human beings only directly utilize about a quarter of the total biomass. The other three quarters is in the form of crop residue and low quality crop, which is not directly useful to people. It is this residue that cattle (ruminants) convert into meat and milk. In addition to this, cattle also utilize grasses on fallow lands, non-arable poor quality lands, open ranges and fadama in the same manner. Pastoralists move their animals to these locations to access these opportunities. This system of production is breaking down today as violent conflicts between pastoralists and farmers have arisen and created a major national crisis.

The Problem

Nigeria's population has grown from 33 million in 1950 to about 192.3 million today. The United Nations recently projected more growth in terms of population in the coming years, 364 million in 2030 and 480 million in 2050 respectively. This phenomenal increase of the population has put enormous pressure on land and water resources used by farmers and pastoralists. Specifically, the demographic increase has led to an expansion in cultivated farmland and a reduction in available grazing land for pastoralists that is characterised by competition over dwindling resources. In the far north, the impact of desertification as well as the crisis of energy, which has resulted in deforestation, coupled with climatic uncertainty and lower rainfall have made it more difficult to sustain increasing populations, pushing many farmers and pastoralists with livestock southwards. This has happened gradually over a period of decades – with an apparent increase over the past decade – and has added to pressure on land and water in central and southern Nigeria.

 

One of the outcomes of this process has been the blockage of transhumance routes and loss of grazing land to agricultural expansion and the increased southward movement of pastoralists has led to increased conflict with local communities. This is particularly the case in the Middle Belt – notably in Plateau, Kaduna, Niger, Nassarawa, Benue, Taraba, and Adamawa States. The conflicts often have localised dynamics, but primarily involve Fulani pastoralists and local farming communities.

 

The Nigerian state has a relatively weak rural presence and has neglected the agrarian sector since the 1970s, when oil revenues began to dominate the economy. There have been few improvements in agricultural productivity and livestock production as a result of the dependence on oil revenues, which have not been reinvested in productive economic activities. State response in the context of the lingering conflicts between farmers and pastoralists has been both ad hoc and reactive, with no concrete and sustainable strategies for conflict management and peace building beyond the deployment of security or establishment of commissions of inquiries. One of the key pathways here is for the state to be more proactive in its responses by putting in place mechanisms that are institutionalised and sustainable both at the local and state levels.

 

As violence between herdsmen and farmers has grown and developed into criminality and rural banditry, popular narratives creating meaning, context and (mis) understandings have been emerging. The narratives emerging on rural banditry in the media and in popular discourse are becoming part of the drivers for expanding conflicts in the country. The protagonists in this saga are often presented as being nomadic Fulani cattle herders, who are mostly Muslims, and sedentary farmer communities of several other ethnic extractions, who are often, but not always non-Muslims. These two distinct groups are usually depicted as perpetrators and victims, respectively. Perspectives of the social, religious and ethnic characteristics of these rural communities are framed into expansive essentialist discourses that actively breed and sustain suspicion and distrust. The result is negative stereotyping between "the one" and "the other" that lead further to ethnic and religious bigotry which fuels the hate process, culminating in further chains of attacks and counter or revenge attacks being exchanged between these different groups. Nigeria urgently needs to find pathways to get out of the crisis and one approach may be the development of grazing reserves for pastoralists.

 

Grazing Reserves As Possible Solution

It is clear that Nigeria and indeed Africa have to plan towards the transformation of pastoralism into settled forms of animal husbandry. The establishment of grazing reserves provides the opportunity for practicing a more limited form of pastoralism and is therefore a pathway towards a more settled form of animal husbandry. Grazing reserves are areas of land demarcated, set aside and reserved for exclusive or semi-exclusive use by pastoralists. Currently, Nigeria has a total of 417 grazing reserves all over the country, out of which only about 113 have been gazetted. There are many problems facing the implementation of the provisions of the 1965 Grazing Reserve Law and the management of the established grazing reserves. First, most of the grazing reserves were established by the then Northern Regional Government. Since the 1970's subsequent military and civilian governments have in effect abandoned the policy of establishing and developing grazing reserves. Secondly, State governments have not been diligent in sustaining previous policies and have not surveyed and gazetted most of the designated grazing reserves. Indeed, only 113 (about 27%) of the 417 proposed grazing reserves have been gazetted.

 

Whether we support or oppose pastoralism, it is clear that at least in the short and medium term, many herds must continue to practice seasonal migration between dry and wet season grazing areas, incorporating past harvest grazing farmland in the highly developed and ecologically sound pattern of transhumance evolved by the pastoralist over the centuries. This is an important point to make at this point when many political actors think it is possible to simply and abruptly ban open grazing. There is indeed, the need for permanent settlement of pastoralists both in the far north and semi humid zone of the middle belt. It is important to focus on the development of grazing reserves as part of the solution.

 

The Law, Politics and Pastoralism

One of the greatest difficulties in addressing and resolving issues surrounding pastoralism is the politicisation of legal regimes and the blockages to the enactment of or implementation of laws that can redress the key challenges posed. In 2016 for example, a bill was proposed - ''A Bill for an Act to establish Grazing Reserve in each of the states of the Federation Nigeria to improve agriculture yield from livestock farming and curb incessant conflicts between cattle farmers and crop farmers in Nigeria.'' The National Assembly on the basis that the Bill appeared to be seeking to favour one particular profession carried out by mainly one ethnic group, the Fulani, threw it out. The problem is that if we cannot have grazing reserves and if pastoralists cannot move, how do we expect the 19 million cattle grazing in the country to survive and how do we protect our Constitutional principle of free movement.

 

Free Movement and Restrictions to Transhumance

There is an emerging conflict between the constitutional principle on free movement of persons and goods and laws emerging in some States restricting movement. In Section 41(1) of the Nigerian Constitution, it is stated that:

 

''Every citizen of Nigeria is entitled to move freely throughout Nigeria and to reside in any part thereof, and no citizen of Nigeria shall be expelled from Nigeria or refused entry thereby or exit therefrom.''

 

Some States have enacted laws or are processing bills to prevent open grazing on their territory. There are four initiatives so far:

 

1.

--

Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Oga Falola,

You have raised very important appendices to this conversation. While we wait for Jibo's response, let me chime in with my thoughts.

There is indeed a fear of the Fulani, which is both political and existential. This has always been part of Nigeria's tripodal politics of mutual ethnic suspicions. The narrative of a domineering Fulani hegemony has always been a trope of Southern Nigerian and Middle Belt political discourse. Some of the suspicion is real and some of it is grounded in fiction and unfounded fear. I suspect that some of may be be strategic. There is also a rather visceral hostility and suspicion of the Fulani in some quarters. This is largely a politically-driven antipathy. 

There is however genuine outrage at the menace of armed herdsmen militias. Unfortunately, in the current climate, it is difficult to tell the former from the latter as they have overlapped and seeped into each other. That is one of the negative consequences of the incessant, largely ignored killings by these militia. Genuine angst agains the killings have sometimes meshed with a more primordial and political distrust of herdsmen and their non-nomadic Fulani kinsmen. It is quite unfortunate.

It is also unfortunate but hardly surprising that the conversation has morphed into a familiar and rather cliched anti-Fulani rhetoric and the promotion of certain political pathologies about the Fulani as hegemonic and domineering. This is one of the reasons that some of us had been restrained from commenting. If you express outrage at the killings, those who harbor an ethnic or political animus against the Fulani as an ethnic group could latch onto what you say to further their agenda. But you cannot keep quiet when mass murders are being committed on a vast scale.

For starters, it is important to point out that not all Fulani are herdsmen or pastoralists. In fact I would say that MOST Fulani, at least in Nigeria, are not nomadic herdsmen. I attended secondary school in Yola, Adamawa State and it doesn't get more Fulani that Yola. Yet most Fulani in Yola and even in the larger Adamawa State are not nomadic herders. Most of them are actually sedentary farmers and traders and settled herders--or ranchers in the prevailing lingo. So, the ethnicization of this conversation is misleading, and the extension of the culpability of the armed herdsmen killers to all Fulani is wrong.

Even among Fulani herdsmen, a fine-grained distinction needs to be made. We all grew up with nomadic Fulani herders in our communities and consumed their dairy products, which we obtained sometimes by battering grains and other items that they needed. They were largely peaceful. They respected the host communities. Whenever their cattle transgressed in farmlands, they obeyed local traditional authorities and paid compensation. When they felt aggrieved by members of host communities, they approached the local authorities for redress. This still happens with some nomadic herders.

What has changed?

What has changed is that, there is a new group (a sub-group, if you will) of herders who have broken this unwritten rule governing relations between herders and farmers. They no longer respect local constituted authorities and have no respect for farmers or their crops in host communities. They are also armed and ready to use these arms to enforce their will and desires on host communities and to kill and sack communities if and when challenged. Needless to say that this small group of ultra-aggressive and violent herdsmen that many now call the Bororo has made life difficult for the nomadic and semi-nomadic herdsmen that many communities across the country have been familiar with for decades if not centuries. Through their mass murders and other heinous acts, they have given a bad name to all herders and helped create a negative stereotype of herders as mass murderers, rapists, and terrorists. It is this stereotype that is now being mobilized mischievously by some people to reinforce previously existing political suspicions of the Fulani ethnic group as a whole.

I was discussing with a member of this list from Kwara state who told me that in his hometow, people are now scared to go to farms after recent incidents of violence and killings of farmers by armed herdsmen. His story is quite emblematic of what is going on across the country. His hometown, a Muslim kingdom with an emir, has, for centuries, welcomed and hosted nomadic Fulani groups, trading with them, interacting with them, and in some cases even intermarrying with them. So deep and historical are these relations that some of the Fulani have now actually settled with their cattle on the outskirts of the community and for all practical purposes have become a part of its fabric. Recently, however, this picture was shattered when a new group of nomadic Fulani herdsmen arrived in the area armed with sophisticated weapons and, unlike previous groups nomads, began aggressively and recklessly encroaching on farms and killing local farmers who challenged them. The most telling aspect of this story is that these armed nomadic killers have not spared the settled and semi-settled Fulani nomadic communities in the area. These new, aggressive and armed nomads have killed local nomads and sacked Fulani settlements in the area as well, sending shockwaves through the entire community, with both Fulani and non-Fulani running for their lives. When my friend asked his people who these new Fulani nomads are, he was told that both his people and the older, largely peaceful Fulani communities in the area call the new, violent nomads Bororo, clearly a term to differentiate them from the other Fulani nomadic groups that have been coexisting with the people of the area for centuries.

My point in telling this story is to yet again underscore the unhelpfulness of generalization and to reinforce the distinctions that must be made among the Fulani and also among the pastoral herdsmen as a way of isolating and defining the identity and character of the mass killers and terrorists who pose a clear threat to the nation.

The danger of ethnicization and generalization is that we will lose allies among the sedentary Fulani and among Fulani intellectuals and aristocrats, who share ethnic affinity with both groups of herdsmen and would resist a quest for solutions that unfairly castigates and stereotypes the Fulani as an ethnic group. The other downside of course is that such an approach is unfair to the historical Fulani nomadic groups whose descendants continue to desire peaceful coexistence with host communities and have at times, as the case I narrated shows, become victims of the killer herdsmen. This victimhood is not just in having their cattle rustled or in being killed by their armed and violent Fulani nomadic kinsmen. It is also in the fact that, unfortunately, the murderous activities of the armed herdsmen militia have destroyed the trust between host communities and historical, largely peaceful Fulani nomadic and semi-nomadic groups. 

This is precisely the reason why, if I were Fulani, whether I'm a nomad or not, I would support the effort to isolate the Bororo mass murderous and deal decisively with them. I would not want my reputation and ethnicity sullied and subjected further to the kind of castigation, negative stereotyping, and suspicions that you outlined above in your questions to Jibrin.

On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 6:44 AM, Toyin Falola <toyinfalola@austin.utexas.edu> wrote:

Jibrin:

 

I have had to change the title of the thread to reflect your concern, a genuine one. I write from London where, yesterday, I had a media run. To my surprise, the fear of the Fulani is widespread, and it is also the subtext to the conversation on Benue and the violence and murder.

 

Here is the summary of the anti-Fulani conversation as I understood it:

 

1.     The Fulani and "hegemonic" power, represented by the face of Buhari and nameless "cabal".

2.     The widespread fear of Fulani dominance—that 2019 is about Fulani retaining power, even if Buhari is an invalid and grossly incompetent.

3.     The perception that the Fulani want to overrun the Middle Belt.

4.     The larger fear of Islamization.

5.     The conversation about the Kano-Niger railway is not seen as that of regional integration but of creating an Islamic zone that will later be used for political dominance.

 

Thus, when you add things up, the Fulani as an ethnic group becomes castigated. I tend to disagree with this view or any view that approximates class interest with ethnic interest. I am Yoruba, but you cannot accuse me of behaving like a Tinubu boy or sharing Tinubu's views!!! Tinubu's interest and mine are not the same.

TF

 

Jibrin, how do you change the meta-narrative as sketched above? Or how I can the Buhari govt. message differently?

TF

 

From: dialogue <usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Jibrin Ibrahim <jibrinibrahim891@gmail.com>
Reply-To: dialogue <usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com>
Date: Thursday, January 11, 2018 at 10:15 AM
To: dialogue <usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Resolving Farmers-Pastoralists Conflicts in Nigeria

 

What is happening to our intellectuals, how can a whole ethnic group be categorised as murderers. 

Professor Jibrin Ibrahim

Senior Fellow

Centre for Democracy and Development, Abuja

Follow me on twitter @jibrinibrahim17

 

On 11 January 2018 at 10:18, Femi Segun <soloruntoba@gmail.com> wrote:

Added to this spurious attempt to defend the indefensible is the recommendation in the panel report that grazing reserves should be carved out, more or less compulsorily. That option should not and cannot be an imposition, except of course we are saying, the murderers have more rights than the people that they have been killing. As Wole Soyinka said in his piece in the Punch of yesterday, the claim by the Inspector General of Police that the killing  was a product of  communal clashes, bespeaks shameful display of ignorance by a law enforcement officer of his rank. Communal clashes occur among neighbors, not between people who leave far apart.  Whether or not PMB is contesting in 2019, he needs to drop his toga of an ethnically and religiously biased posturing. Why on earth will he declare Operation Python and Operation Dance in the Southeast and South South without deeming fit to deploy Soldiers to the Middle Belt to stop these mindless killings? 

 

On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 12:46 AM, Moses Ebe Ochonu <meochonu@gmail.com> wrote:

But in Zamfara state, the killings are occuring between cattle rustlers and herders, both of whom are Fulani for the most part, the cattle rustlers sometimes being former herders and vice versa. It was only later that the crisis pitted some Fulani herders against non-Fulani communities as these communities began to take revenge indiscriminately against Fulani herders after their communities were attacked by the Fulani bandits.The president has largely solved that problem by inaugurating in the first few months of his tenure a military task force to deal with the issue in that axis extending all the way to Birnin Gwari in Kaduna State. Perhaps you need to give us the evidence of herdsmen being killed in Benue. Even Miyetti has not alleged killings in Benue; rather it claims that its members lost 1000 cattle to theft when they were migrating from Benue to Nasarawa state, and that the recent massacre was revenge for the loss of said cattle. I'm sure some herdsmen have lost their lives in the expanding collision between armed Bororo herders and farming communities across the country. However, only one group, the herdsmen, have a roving, armed militia that is killing and terrorizing people and sacking communities with impunity from Zamfara to Southern Kaduna, to Plateau, to Benue, to Enugu, to Kogi, Edo, and beyond. There is a pattern of nationwide terror for which the armed wings of Bororo herdsmen are responsible. That is a discernible pattern that should be recognized on its own terms without the forced narrative that killings are not one-sided. It does not help to construct false equalences or to manufacture claims about herdsmen killings that the herdsmen themselves have not made. The  herdsmen militia, mobile and murderous, are an existential threat to Nigeria. I hope Buhari wakes up from his nonchalance and deals with it as the national threat that it is. Jonathan was late to recognize the threat that Boko Haram posed to the nation and he paid a political price for it, not to mention the thousands of needless deaths that occurred as a result of his conspiracy-fueled tardiness. We do not help him recognize the threat when we throw out exculpatory and obfuscatory canards such as "the killings are not one-sided." A pattern of terror stalks the land, and it is traceable to one roving, murderous militia. Pointing to isolated, historically familiar, and sporadic incidents of mutual conflict between herdsmen and their sedentary hosts should not be advanced to take attention away from this national threat. That sporadic, familiar conflict has been with us for centuries and was never a problem until this strangely new group of Bororo herders decided to use brute force, backed by a well armed militia, to take grazing land from farming communities and to punish them when they would not yield.

 

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Jibrin Ibrahim <jibrinibrahim891@gmail.com> wrote:

In Zamfara State, a killer State, a killer squad has been killing Fulani pastoralists for the past two years and no one is talking about it. In Benue, the same thing has happened and I am told I can't say killing is done by both sides. Yes the media is heavily one-sided in its reporting and the Fulani story is not being told, and it should be. All killings are unacceptable, why can't we take this as a point of departure.

 

 

Professor Jibrin Ibrahim

Senior Fellow

Centre for Democracy and Development, Abuja

Follow me on twitter @jibrinibrahim17

 

On 10 January 2018 at 21:20, segun ogungbemi <seguno2013@gmail.com> wrote:

Legislative Solutions

"There are discordant laws and regulations that legislate livestock production and pastoralism at the regional, national and state levels. Some of the newly emerging laws such as the "anti-grazing" state laws appear to contradict the free movement principle enshrined in the Constitution."

I just want to comment on the above quotation. My response is that the idea of free movement is not elastic. You have freedom of movement insofar as  it does not enchroach on the right of others to personal property and protection of life. For instance,  if I invest in farming and my crops flourish and just before harvesting them a herdsman and his cows enchroach on the farm and destroy the crops,  the law does not permit the herdsman and his animals to violate my right to property. 

There is a mutual respect between one with  freedom and another with right. Each must know his limit to avoid unnessary  conflicts of interest. That is what is missing in both claims of freedom and right agents in Nigeria.

That is where National Orientation Agency and social media should try to educate the masses.   

Segun. 

 

On Jan 10, 2018 16:43, "Femi Segun" <soloruntoba@gmail.com> wrote:

Oga Toyin

I beg to differ. This position defeats  the pursuit of nation-building and societal harmony. We need an effective state and visionary leadership to manage the various centripetal and centrifugal forces. Saying we don't need them is an escapist answer. Damage has been done and still being done, but we cannot hands off in defeat.Many of us cried out last year  when some misguided youth gave ultimatum to the Igbos to leave the North. We must help this government to think right and act justly.

 

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 4:04 PM, Oluwatoyin Vincent Adepoju <toyin.adepoju@gmail.com> wrote:

The Fulani herdsmen problem is the work of a group of terrorists trying to obtain other people's land through massacre.

 

Please stay in your region with your cows.

 

We dont need them.

 

toyion

 

On 9 January 2018 at 21:50, Jibrin Ibrahim <jibrinibrahim891@gmail.com> wrote:

Please note that the killing is not one sided as is often reported in the press. Militia groups have emerged to kill herdsmen and they are having a lot of success. Ranches is very misunderstood concept and only operates in thinly populated dry lands where a lot of land can be allocated to cattle owners, thats not our situation. The issue has become very emotive and objective discussion has become difficult but we are trying to do just that.

Professor Jibrin Ibrahim

Senior Fellow

Centre for Democracy and Development, Abuja

Follow me on twitter @jibrinibrahim17

 

On 9 January 2018 at 14:50, Femi Segun <soloruntoba@gmail.com> wrote:

Much as one should commend the efforts of the panel members who put up this report, I hasten to say that it is very cosmetic and somehow apologetic of a certain interest-the interest of the Pastoralists. One would have expected that a panel that is made up of such experts should go as far as recommending restorative  justice for the families of thousands that have been killed by the Pastoralists. I read an article in the Punch today, where the leader of the Myetti Allah in Benue State said his group had to kill 25 human beings because 1000 cows were stolen. Has life become so cheap as to be trading human lives for cows? Ideally, reports of this  nature should  have inputs from all the parties that have been affected by the ongoing conflicts in one way or the other. Several arguments have been put out there on the imperative of having cattle ranches. Even though this was mentioned in the report, it is obvious that the preference is the continuation of the current order of moving cattle from the North to the South-with all the consequences. This preference was presented as if it is law, that cannot be challenged. In a plural society like ours, such proclivity can be interpreted to mean an expression  of superiority of one group over another. Can we claim to be a member of the  civilised world if we lack the courage to say or do  what is obtainable in other civilised societies? To what extent can a farmer from Ekiti or Umuahia be allowed to take over land by the force of arms in Sokoto or Kaduna in the name of constitutional provision of freedom of movement? In order to forestall the worsening of the violence and other social consequences that the report rightly highlighted, I will suggest that the recommendations should be rethought and redrafted to acknowledge the pain that those who have needlessly suffered loss of lives are going through and proffer solutions to alleviating such pains in form of compensations. The Government should also stop the current  parochial approach to a festering national sore by developing the courage to apprehend, try in the court of law and punish people who murder human beings  in exchange for cows. Methink there are laws that cover stealing in Nigeria. Those who are found to have stolen cows should also be tried and given just sentence. Additionally, the hard option of cattle ranches should be pursued rather than hiding under the constitution to justify the wanton destruction of lives and livelihood of farmers, across the country. This report falls short of expectations in terms of providing intellectual leadership on nation building and cohesion, especially coming from such a distinguished panel. 

Samuel

 

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 12:41 PM, Jibrin Ibrahim <jibrinibrahim891@gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

Pastoralist-Farmers Conflicts and the Search for Peaceful Resolution

 

Memorandum by the Nigerian Working Group on Peace Building and Governance

 

Abuja, 8^th January 2018

 

Executive Summary

Pastoralists-farmers' conflicts in Nigeria have grown, spread and intensified over the past decade and today poses a threat to national survival. Thousands of people have been killed, communities have been destroyed and so many farmers and pastoralists have lost their lives and property in an orgy of killings and destruction that is not only destroying livelihoods but also affecting national cohesion. Nigeria has about 19 million cattle much of it in the hands of pastoralists and we need to seek solutions to the problem of pastoralism while resolving the problem of insecurity that has arisen.

 

The Problem

Nigeria's population has grown from 33 million in 1950 to about 192.3 million today. This phenomenal increase of the population has put enormous pressure on land and water resources used by farmers and pastoralists. One of the outcomes of this process has been the blockage of transhumance routes and loss of grazing land to agricultural expansion and the increased southward movement of pastoralists has led to increased conflict with local communities. This is particularly the case in the Middle Belt – notably in Plateau, Kaduna, Niger, Nassarawa, Benue, Taraba, and Adamawa States. The conflicts primarily involve Fulani pastoralists and local farming communities. As violence between herdsmen and farmers has grown and developed into criminality and rural banditry, popular narratives in the form of hate speech have exacerbated the crisis.

 

Grazing Reserves As Possible Solution

It is clear that Nigeria and indeed Africa have to plan towards the transformation of pastoralism into settled forms of animal husbandry. The establishment of grazing reserves provides the opportunity for practicing a more limited form of pastoralism and is therefore a pathway towards a more settled form of animal husbandry. Nigeria has a total of 417 grazing reserves out of which only about 113 have been gazetted. Whether we support or oppose pastoralism, it is clear that at least in the short and medium term, many herds must continue to practice seasonal migration between dry and wet season grazing areas. Ultimately, there is the need for permanent settlement of pastoralists.

 

The Law, Politics and Pastoralism

One of the greatest difficulties in addressing and resolving issues surrounding pastoralism is the politicisation of legal regimes and the blockages to the enactment of or implementation of laws that can redress the key challenges posed. In 2016 for example, a bill was proposed - ''A Bill for an Act to establish Grazing Reserve in each of the states of the Federation Nigeria to improve agriculture yield from livestock farming and curb incessant conflicts between cattle farmers and crop farmers in Nigeria'' was thrown out. There is an emerging conflict between the constitutional principle on free movement of persons and goods and laws emerging in some States restricting movement. Some States have enacted laws or are processing bills to prevent open grazing on their territory. There are four initiatives so far in Benue, Ekiti, Taraba and Edo States. Could such laws be effective in prohibiting pastoralism, which is practiced by millions of Nigerians?

 

Developing a Comprehensive Policy Framework

A new policy framework on the farmers-pastoralists crisis should be developed that is both comprehensive and mutually beneficial to both groups. An inter-ministerial committee should be constituted with experts and stakeholder membership to draw up the framework. There must be a consultative process that listens to the concerns of all stakeholders in developing the new framework so that the outcome would have national ownership. Pastoralism is not sustainable in Nigeria over the long term due to high population growth rate, expansion of farming and loss of pasture and cattle routes. At the same time, pastoralism cannot end or be prohibited in the short term, as there are strong cultural and political economy reasons for its existence. The new policy should develop a plan for a transitional period during which new systems would be put in place. The framework should map out the duration, strategy and timelines for the transition plan. Finally, a comprehensive approach to address the growing crisis associated with violence affecting pastoralism and farmers in Nigeria is necessary.

Introduction

Pastoralists-farmers' conflicts in Nigeria have grown, spread and intensified over the past decade and today poses a threat to national survival. Thousands of people have been killed, communities have been destroyed and so many farmers and pastoralists have lost their lives and property in an orgy of killings and destruction that is not only destroying livelihoods but also affecting national cohesion. Each day, we witness more reprisal killings that are simply making the possibilities of peaceful resolution more difficult. Rural banditry is becoming the norm in the Nigerian hinterland and has been transformed into a vicious criminal activity. The result is that the scale of loss of both herds and human life has been escalating and the victims are on all sides – subsistence farmers, commercial farmers and pastoralists. Nonetheless, we write this memo to say we cannot give up to hate and destruction, let's pause, reflect and seek a way out of the crisis.

 

Nigeria has a large pastoral population the logic of whose livelihood is often misunderstood. What is better understood is the culture of farming, which is rooted in a specific location and has activities that take place regularly. The assumption that pastoralism is in itself an irrational production system is far from the truth. Pastoralism is the main livestock production system in much of Africa where pastoralists live in semi arid zones. It is a historically developed strategy to cope with the uncertainties associated with climate change, build up of parasites and other related challenges. It is above all an efficient way to produce livestock at relatively low prices through the use of non-commercial feeding stock. Historically, pastoralists have been able to meet the meat demand in West Africa with a relatively high level of efficiency without government subsidy for generations.

Different methods through the use of farm residue and open range grazing has allowed this trend to flourish. Nigeria has a landmass of 98.3 million hectares, 82 million hectares of arable land of which about 34 million hectares are currently under cultivation. In crop farming, human beings only directly utilize about a quarter of the total biomass. The other three quarters is in the form of crop residue and low quality crop, which is not directly useful to people. It is this residue that cattle (ruminants) convert into meat and milk. In addition to this, cattle also utilize grasses on fallow lands, non-arable poor quality lands, open ranges and fadama in the same manner. Pastoralists move their animals to these locations to access these opportunities. This system of production is breaking down today as violent conflicts between pastoralists and farmers have arisen and created a major national crisis.

The Problem

Nigeria's population has grown from 33 million in 1950 to about 192.3 million today. The United Nations recently projected more growth in terms of population in the coming years, 364 million in 2030 and 480 million in 2050 respectively. This phenomenal increase of the population has put enormous pressure on land and water resources used by farmers and pastoralists. Specifically, the demographic increase has led to an expansion in cultivated farmland and a reduction in available grazing land for pastoralists that is characterised by competition over dwindling resources. In the far north, the impact of desertification as well as the crisis of energy, which has resulted in deforestation, coupled with climatic uncertainty and lower rainfall have made it more difficult to sustain increasing populations, pushing many farmers and pastoralists with livestock southwards. This has happened gradually over a period of decades – with an apparent increase over the past decade – and has added to pressure on land and water in central and southern Nigeria.

 

One of the outcomes of this process has been the blockage of transhumance routes and loss of grazing land to agricultural expansion and the increased southward movement of pastoralists has led to increased conflict with local communities. This is particularly the case in the Middle Belt – notably in Plateau, Kaduna, Niger, Nassarawa, Benue, Taraba, and Adamawa States. The conflicts often have localised dynamics, but primarily involve Fulani pastoralists and local farming communities.

 

The Nigerian state has a relatively weak rural presence and has neglected the agrarian sector since the 1970s, when oil revenues began to dominate the economy. There have been few improvements in agricultural productivity and livestock production as a result of the dependence on oil revenues, which have not been reinvested in productive economic activities. State response in the context of the lingering conflicts between farmers and pastoralists has been both ad hoc and reactive, with no concrete and sustainable strategies for conflict management and peace building beyond the deployment of security or establishment of commissions of inquiries. One of the key pathways here is for the state to be more proactive in its responses by putting in place mechanisms that are institutionalised and sustainable both at the local and state levels.

 

As violence between herdsmen and farmers has grown and developed into criminality and rural banditry, popular narratives creating meaning, context and (mis) understandings have been emerging. The narratives emerging on rural banditry in the media and in popular discourse are becoming part of the drivers for expanding conflicts in the country. The protagonists in this saga are often presented as being nomadic Fulani cattle herders, who are mostly Muslims, and sedentary farmer communities of several other ethnic extractions, who are often, but not always non-Muslims. These two distinct groups are usually depicted as perpetrators and victims, respectively. Perspectives of the social, religious and ethnic characteristics of these rural communities are framed into expansive essentialist discourses that actively breed and sustain suspicion and distrust. The result is negative stereotyping between "the one" and "the other" that lead further to ethnic and religious bigotry which fuels the hate process, culminating in further chains of attacks and counter or revenge attacks being exchanged between these different groups. Nigeria urgently needs to find pathways to get out of the crisis and one approach may be the development of grazing reserves for pastoralists.

 

Grazing Reserves As Possible Solution

It is clear that Nigeria and indeed Africa have to plan towards the transformation of pastoralism into settled forms of animal husbandry. The establishment of grazing reserves provides the opportunity for practicing a more limited form of pastoralism and is therefore a pathway towards a more settled form of animal husbandry. Grazing reserves are areas of land demarcated, set aside and reserved for exclusive or semi-exclusive use by pastoralists. Currently, Nigeria has a total of 417 grazing reserves all over the country, out of which only about 113 have been gazetted. There are many problems facing the implementation of the provisions of the 1965 Grazing Reserve Law and the management of the established grazing reserves. First, most of the grazing reserves were established by the then Northern Regional Government. Since the 1970's subsequent military and civilian governments have in effect abandoned the policy of establishing and developing grazing reserves. Secondly, State governments have not been diligent in sustaining previous policies and have not surveyed and gazetted most of the designated grazing reserves. Indeed, only 113 (about 27%) of the 417 proposed grazing reserves have been gazetted.

 

Whether we support or oppose pastoralism, it is clear that at least in the short and medium term, many herds must continue to practice seasonal migration between dry and wet season grazing areas, incorporating past harvest grazing farmland in the highly developed and ecologically sound pattern of transhumance evolved by the pastoralist over the centuries. This is an important point to make at this point when many political actors think it is possible to simply and abruptly ban open grazing. There is indeed, the need for permanent settlement of pastoralists both in the far north and semi humid zone of the middle belt. It is important to focus on the development of grazing reserves as part of the solution.

 

The Law, Politics and Pastoralism

One of the greatest difficulties in addressing and resolving issues surrounding pastoralism is the politicisation of legal regimes and the blockages to the enactment of or implementation of laws that can redress the key challenges posed. In 2016 for example, a bill was proposed - ''A Bill for an Act to establish Grazing Reserve in each of the states of the Federation Nigeria to improve agriculture yield from livestock farming and curb incessant conflicts between cattle farmers and crop farmers in Nigeria.'' The National Assembly on the basis that the Bill appeared to be seeking to favour one particular profession carried out by mainly one ethnic group, the Fulani, threw it out. The problem is that if we cannot have grazing reserves and if pastoralists cannot move, how do we expect the 19 million cattle grazing in the country to survive and how do we protect our Constitutional principle of free movement.

 

Free Movement and Restrictions to Transhumance

There is an emerging conflict between the constitutional principle on free movement of persons and goods and laws emerging in some States restricting movement. In Section 41(1) of the Nigerian Constitution, it is stated that:

 

''Every citizen of Nigeria is entitled to move freely throughout Nigeria and to reside in any part thereof, and no citizen of Nigeria shall be expelled from Nigeria or refused entry thereby or exit therefrom.''

 

Some States have enacted laws or are processing bills to prevent open grazing on their territory. There are four initiatives so far:

 

1.   Ekiti state: Prohibition of Cattle and Other Ruminants Grazing in Ekiti, 2016.

2.   Taraba state: Anti-Open Grazing Prohibition and Ranches Establishment Bill 2017. 'A bill for a law to prohibit open rearing and grazing of livestock and provide for the establishment of ranches and the Taraba State livestock and ranches administration and control committee and for others connected thereto 2017'.

3.   Edo State Bill: A Bill for A Law to Establish the Edo State Control of Nomadic Cattle Rearing/Grazing Law and for Other Purposes.

4.   Benue State Law: A Law to Prohibit Open Rearing and Grazing of Livestock and Provide for the Establishment of Ranches and Livestock Administration, Regulation and Control and for Other Matters Connected Therewith, 2017.

It is worthwhile posing the question whether laws can be effective in prohibiting pastoralism, which is practiced by millions of Nigerians. As some of the laws have already been passed, they would have to be tested in court. It is important to stress however that the Constitution guarantees free movement of persons and goods across Nigeria and no State government can withdraw constitutionally entrenched rights. Secondly, following a legislation by the Ogun State Government and the Supreme Court Judgment on the matter cited as "A.G. OGUN STATE V. ALHAJA AYINKE ABERUAGBA (1985) 1 NWLR PG. 395" States were barred frominterfering with inter-state commerce and the free movement of goods and services. At that time, Ogun State had tried to control and tax goods entering from other States and the Supreme Court ruled that it would be chaotic if States enacted any laws they please restricting movement of goods and services in the Federation. It was this judgment that led to the introduction of value added tax (VAT) as a State tax that is determined at the national level and collected by the Federal Government, which takes an administrative fee and redistributes the proceeds back to the States. The key issue however is that pastoralism has developed into a national crisis that is leading to increased violence so a legal approach alone cannot resolve the issue. It is therefore important to negotiate a national policy framework that would protect the interests of both farmers and herders. The Federal Government should take the initiative of negotiating a consensual policy framework that would address the issues.

 

Developing a Comprehensive Policy Framework

Livestock production in Nigeria is in existential crisis and the country lacks a cohesive and comprehensive policy framework for livestock development and regulation in Nigeria. The defunct Northern Grazing Reserve Law has not been updated, the Land Use Act of 1978 is dysfunctional, emerging state grazing reserve laws, the ECOWAS Transhumance Protocol and other related international instruments have to be updated and streamlined.

Recommendation

Piecemeal of sectorial approach to livestock development will not suffice. A new policy framework should be developed that is both comprehensive and must be mutually beneficial to pastoralists and farmers. Any policy that does not take into consideration the welfare of both sides will most likely fail or meet resistance by either side. An inter-ministerial committee should be constituted with experts and stakeholder membership to draw up the framework. There must be a consultative process that listens to the concerns of all stakeholders in developing the new framework so that the outcome would have national ownership.

 

The Future of Pastoralism and Animal Husbandry

Pastoralism is not sustainable in Nigeria over the long term due to high population growth rate, expansion of farming and loss of pasture and cattle routes. At the same time, pastoralism cannot end of be prohibited in the short term as there are strong cultural and political economy reasons for its existence. It is important therefore to develop a plan for a transitional period during which new systems would be put in place.

Recommendations

Experts should be assembled to map out the duration, strategy and timelines for the transition plan. As there is no miracle model for solving the problems, the plan should simultaneously pursue a number of models including:

i.      Ranching can be pursued as one of the possible models in areas with lower population densities in the North East (Sambisa Game Reserve in Borno State) and North West (Gidan Jaja Grazing Reserve in Zamfara State);

ii.    Semi-intensive systems of animal husbandry should be pursued accompanied with requisite investment in infrastructure, training, extension, marketing and animal health service delivery in conjuncture with the private sector;

iii.   The traditional form of pastoralism should continue for a period to be agreed upon with some improvements (in the form of coordinated mobility between wet and dry season grazing areas and effective management of farmers and pastoralists relations);

iv.  Use of and development of grazing reserves to target pastoralists with large stocks where skills for pasture production, large milk production, etc can be promoted.

v.    Development of integrated crop-livestock systems with farmers and pastoralists being encouraged to keep some animals in their farms.

vi.  In order to meet the feeding needs of herds, alternative low water and drought resistant grasses should be produced, in response to the impact of desertification on fodder production.

 

Modernisation of Livestock

Nigeria has one of the lowest productivity levels of livestock in the world. It is for this reason that Nigeria imports very large quantities of milk, fish and chicken. The Nigerian herd requires sustained efforts at quality development based on a modernisation strategy that would transform the industry and move the country towards the objective of self-reliance.

Recommendations

The programme for the country's transition to modern forms of animal husbandry must be accelerated and funded. The national stock would require rapid improvement and modernisation to meet market demands for meat, milk, hides and other products from the industry:

i.               Commercial ranches should be established in some of the sparsely populated zones in the North East and North West;

ii.             The business community should be encouraged through policy measures to invest in the establishment of modern dairy farms;

iii.            Sensitisation programmes should be undertaken on the values of livestock improvement and breeding centres for the production of quality heifers to improve pastoral stock should be developed all over the country.

iv.           Efforts should be made towards modelling best practices of pastoral-farmer relations as evident in countries such as Chad, Ethiopia and Niger, where the existence of institutionalised and functional mechanisms for pre-empting and resolving conflicts between farmers and pastoralists enable them to live in peace.

 

Growing Conflicts and Imperative of Peace Building

Over the past decade, there has been a dramatic explosion of violent conflicts associated with the deteriorating relationship between farmers and herders, cattle rustling and rural banditry in Nigeria. There is also limited knowledge about who the perpetrators are and their motives.

 

Recommendations

A comprehensive approach to necessary to address the growing crisis associated with violence affecting pastoralism and farmers in Nigeria. The Federal Government should commission a large-scale research endeavour to carry out in-depth study to understand the reasons for the escalation of violence, key actors, motivations and agency fuelling the crisis.

 

The Boko Haram Insurgency

Specific measures are required to address the Boko Haram insurgency North Eastern States of Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Taraba and Yobe, which have close to 40% of the total cattle, sheep and goats of the National herd. These States also have the highest number of grazing reserves 255 or 61% of the 415 nationally identified grazing reserves. There are also many kilometres of stock routes interconnecting these reserves. The highest number of transhumance and trade cattle, sheep and goats from ECOWAS countries, Chad, Cameroun, Central African Republic and other countries, come into Nigeria on North Eastern International Transhumance Route.

 

Recommendations

In addition to the search for improving security in the zone through the use of security forces and mobilizing the civil population, some policy decisions are required. The military should be encouraged to pursue the path of ranching as it has already decided to. The Sambisa Grazing Reserve (4800 ha) is an ideal and symbolic place to take-off by establishing a ranch run by the military. It would significantly improve the security situation in the zone and encourage cooperation between pastoralists and the military. In the North West, the military should also be encouraged to create ranches in the Gidan Jaja Grazing Reserve (565,000 ha) for the same purpose of improving security and cooperation with pastoralists.

 

Growth of Hate and Dangerous Speech

Hate speech has now become a generator and accelerator of violent conflicts and the phenomenon of fake news is worsening its negative impact.

 

Recommendations

There is need for the development of a media code to be used in sensitizing the media on the relevant international standards on reporting issues of conflict and banditry. This process should involve conflict sensitivity and safety training and it should be based on very strict journalistic standards. Appropriate laws and regulations should be developed at both the federal and state levels towards ensuring that the margin of what is seen, as "free speech" in the media will be effectively regulated.  

 

Breakdown of Traditional Conflict Resolution Mechanisms

One of the most important dimensions of the growing conflicts between pastoralists and farmers has been the breakdown of traditional conflict resolution mechanisms. In the past, when conflicts arise, they were settles by village heads and ardos, Fulani community leaders and if the need for payment of compensation arises, there were traditional systems and knowledge of how to assess damage done and the amount necessary to compensate for the damage and not profiteering. What we see today as a breakdown of traditional authority in the context of conflict management is a consequence of the take over of their powers by the state at the federal, state and local government levels, through the ad hoc measures that are often time wasting and whose recommendations are not implemented.

 

Recommendations

Cattle routes should be restored and significant investment made in restoring traditional conflict resolution mechanisms. As massive corruption has accompanied the increased presence of the police and courts in matters affecting farmers and herders, there should be advocacy and administrative guidance to return to traditional methods of conflict resolution. There should be capacity development of farmers and herders associations so that they play a more positive role in the process.

 

The Environmental and Climate Smart Pastoralism

Livestock produce some greenhouse emissions and pollutants. These can however be mitigated and even reversed by the sustainability of the methods that are used. On the whole, pastoralism is the only renewable non-extractive use of Ryland resources and it plays an essential role in maintaining soil and water quality. In addition, it slows down the loss of biodiversity.

 

Recommendations

Intensive capacity building is required in promoting and advocating for climate smart approaches to animal husbandry including the prevention of overgrazing, promoting integration of grazing and manure provision for farms and coordinated movement between ecological zones in the dry and wet seasons.

 

Legislative Solutions

There are discordant laws and regulations that legislate livestock production and pastoralism at the regional, national and state levels. Some of the newly emerging laws such as the "anti-grazing" state laws appear to contradict the free movement principle enshrined in the Constitution.

Recommendations

i.               A harmonization of relevant laws and policies that governs grazing reserves. Specifically, the 1965 Grazing Reserve Law can be revived based on section 315 of the 1999 constitution in the 19 northern states.

ii.             This should be complemented with a national review and protection of traditional stock routes;

iii.            Regional instruments governing pastoralism should be protected and above all domesticated;

iv.           In addition to the laws, consultative process between farming and pastoral communities are required to review the effect of statutes and regulations on routine practices of animal husbandry.

Expanding Grazing Reserves

The Nigerian livestock industry is largely dependent on natural vegetation. Although there is a vast hectrage of natural vegetation in the country they are not maximally utilized due to poor planning and conflicting government policies. It was estimated that there are over 40 million hectares of grazing land in Nigeria, out of which only 3 million hectares are specifically tagged as grazing reserves.

Recommendations

The idea to encourage nomads to settle was first made in 1942 but never implemented. A clear policy of land grant to pastoralists should be developed and implemented by state governments.

 

 

Digital Tracking of Cattle

The Katsina State Government has just launched a digital tracking system for cattle in the State. It involves inserting microchips in the animals skin and tracking them with mobile phones. The use of such technologies could help address the problem of cattle rustling and violence that have become so rampant. Such initiatives should be supported.

 

The Construction of Positive Narratives

The atmosphere between farming and pastoral communities is extremely bitter and negative. Support should be provided for creative writers in Nollywood, Kannywood, radio and television to create new narratives showing how the interaction between the two groups could be peaceful and mutually beneficial. Above all, the National Orientation Agency (NOA), as an institution with presence across the 774 Local Government Areas (LGAs) of the country, should provide these critical services.

                                                     

Signed by

 

Professor Ibrahim Gambari

General Martin Luther Agwai (Rtd)

Professor Jibrin Ibrahim

Professor Attahiru Jega

Dr. Usman Bugaje

Dr. Chris Kwaja

Ambassador Fatima Balla

Dr. Nguyan Fesse

Mrs. Aisha Muhammed – Oyebode

Mallam Y. Z. Ya'u

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Professor Jibrin Ibrahim

Senior Fellow

Centre for Democracy and Development, Abuja

Follow me on twitter @jibrinibrahim17

--
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 

--
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 

--
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 

--
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 

--
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 

--
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 

--
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 

--
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 

--
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.