Hands
on the hip, elbows turned outward, a sword pouch dangling – the young Fulani
man watches as his cows stray into an already harvested farmland where they
graze marginal grasses.
This
is Karu, a neighbourhood off Abuja-Keffi Expressway, central Nigeria. Several
kilometres away, in Benue State, a herdsman who is reportedly armed with a
machete, perches on a cashew tree, hacking away its lush branches, felling them
to the ground for the cows to feed, while trampling on ridges.
These
happen in rural areas where the government is far removed.
Irate
farmers sometimes resort to self-help, for instance, poisoning water sources
upon which herdsmen and their herds depend. Trouble then blows open, many times
resulting in vindictive reprisals marked by extreme violence.
Such
clashes can be projected as (Fulani) Muslim versus (Middle Belt) Christian
battle in the media and public discourse even when the farmer and the herdsman
in the village are barely concerned about any religion or ethnicity but
survival and resource-use.
This
is Nigeria’s farmers-herders’ conflict, which, as research shows, is rooted in
ecological phenomena such as environmental degradation, resource competition
and unsustainable population growth.
It
is, however, a case that shows the ecology-conflict relationship is not
simplistically linear, rejecting the Malthusian mono-causal environmentalist
explanation.
‘Historic drivers’
So,
crucially, it has other drivers: a history of distrust and poor state capacity
which form the socio-political context – apart from the ecological context.
The
conflict has now assumed a seemingly intractable dimension, exacerbated by
Nigeria’s problem of national unity, precipitating a humongous humanitarian
disaster.
The
trigger, meanwhile, is that of unrestricted pastoralism or open grazing, which,
as in the Karu and Benue scenarios, almost always causes straying into
farmlands by herdsmen and their cows, thereby inciting violence.
Ruga birthed
An
immediate solution, the federal government thought, is then to make the
herdsmen sedentary thus enabling them to practice ”a settled form of
pastoralism”, increase productivity and address the conflict with farmers.
Then
Ruga is projected as a fresh idea to create the infrastructure that encourages
restricted pastoralism, which many have demanded as an alternative to the
highly risky open grazing.
Its
suspension was, however, announced on Wednesday, after a meeting governors had
with the Vice President, Yemi Osinbajo, who has been under fire lately.
But
before the announcement, it had elicited reactions that further exposed the
façade that nationhood is in Nigeria. It took the curtain off what appears to
be simmering crisis in the high government circle, with the Vice President,
Yemi Osinbajo, publicly distancing his office from the programme.
The
controversy generated by the Ruga programme exposed a dearth of capacity for
policy communication and stakeholders’ engagement management in the context of
a turbulent polity.
“Just
ten days ago, President Muhammadu Buhari approved a programme called the Ruga
settlement where herders will live, grow their cattle and produce milk,”
announced the immediate past minister of agriculture, Audu Ogbe, on May 21.
“This is essential to avert any conflict between herders and the farmers.”
Contradiction
Ruga
was voluntary for states willing to yield parts of their land for the
programme, the government had announced.
However,
in a statement, presidential spokesperson Garba Shehu said the federal
government had “gazetted land” in all the states of the federation. His
statement seemed to have contradicted an earlier one where he claimed the
programme would only be implemented in the states that signed up.
“Without
discarding that (Mr Shehu’s) statement, the truth is that the federal
government has no land in any place apart from the FCT,” another presidential
spokesperson, Femi Adesina, told PREMIUM TIMES on Tuesday, trying to address
the seeming contradiction inherent in Mr Shehu’s statement.
So
far, 12 states, all in the country’s north have signed up for the pilot phase,
the government said. None is in the South.
A
contract award letter seen by PREMIUM TIMES suggests implementation had already
started by the time Mr Ogbe made his announcement. But there was no prior
public consultation, and details of the procurement process are not immediately
clear.
Although
Mr Adesina confirmed to PREMIUM TIMES the programme was approved by the Federal
Executive Council and the contract paper indicates that approval was granted on
May 8, yet there is no such item as Ruga in the 2019 Appropriations Act.
But
this paper confirmed the programme is under the ministry of agriculture and
officials say funding appropriated for another item in the budget is to be used
for Ruga.
Mr
Shehu had said a Ruga settlement “which simply means rural settlement” would
have “necessary and adequate basic amenities such as schools, hospitals, road
networks, vet clinics, markets and manufacturing entities that will process and
add value to meat and animal products.”
It
is not certain if Mr Shehu was revealing actual details of the provisions in a
Ruga settlement.
The
contract paper seen by PREMIUM TIMES shows N166 million is the “total sum” for
the “construction of eight Ruga settlements with sanitary facilities (red
bricks structure) in Taraba State”. We are yet to authenticate the award letter
from the ministry of agriculture.
PREMIUM
TIMES is requesting details of the procurement process from the ministry.
Osinbajo’s
NLTP
Meanwhile,
for about two years, Mr Osinbajo worked as the head of the efforts of the
National Economic Council, which comprises all state governors, to produce the
National Livestock Transformation Plan, 2019-2028 .
The
plan, according to the office of the Vice President, “is built on six key
pillars: economic investment, conflict resolution, law and order, humanitarian
relief, information education and strategic communication; and cross-cutting
issues.”
The
economic investment pillar rests on the proposal for the development of
clusters of “market-driven ranches in pilot states.”
These
states include those referred to as frontline having been severely hit by the
conflict – Adamawa, Benue, Ebonyi, Edo, Kaduna, Nassarawa, Oyo, Plateau, Taraba
and Zamfara.
Governors
are to donate land for the ranches which would be dedicated to livestock
production, commercial rainfed/irrigated fodder pasture production for animal
feeds, and value addition and service facilities.
Sidelined by Ruga
But
even before the Osinbajo-led plan was unveiled in June, the new idea – Ruga –
had emerged, gaining the approval of the Federal Executive Council presided by
President Muhammadu Buhari on May 8.
With
public engagement barely happening ahead of the Ruga programme, many had assumed
the Ruga was an offshoot of the NLTP. But Mr Osinbajo, through spokesperson
Laolu Akande, distanced himself from Ruga.
“Contrary
to claims reported in sections of the media, Ruga settlements are not being
supervised by the Office of the Vice President,” said Mr Akande. “Ruga is
different from the National Livestock Transformation Plan approved by State
Governors under the auspices of the National Economic Council.”
“(So)
where did Ruga emerge from?” queried former minister Oby Ezekwesili in a tweet
on Monday.
Divided
Presidency?
Like
the Ruga, the NLTP also involves land grant from the states willing to
participate. Both also include a cluster of settled (Fulani) pastoral families.
But unlike Ruga, the NLTP has followed a clear process of stakeholders’
engagement and inputs culminating in a policy document disclosed to the public
– and it is clear in terms of social capital, justice and law, conflict
resolution and livelihood recovery plan for displaced persons.
Asked
why the federal government had pursued Ruga, instead of implementing the
Osinbajo plan, Mr Adesina told PREMIUM TIMES the latter was a long-term project
on Tuesday.
“The
VP’s plan is a long-term programme – it is for ten years,” the presidential
spokesperson said. “Ruga is immediate. It can’t wait. It is an emergency
response. Do we wait for people to continue to be killed and violence to
continue?”
Asked
for comment on the suggestion that Mr Osinbajo was side-lined and his efforts
made irrelevant, senior officials attached to the vice president, who asked not
to be named, declined to comment.
Steeped
In Distrust
Traditionally
Muslims, the Fulani, in 1804, led by Othman Dan Fodio, successfully launched
the Jihad, a political cum military campaign aimed at a rule based on the
principles of Islam.
Within
30 years, the Hausa kingdoms had fallen to them, marking the genesis of the
Sokoto Caliphate and the Fulani Emirates now found in most of the Muslim North;
they reached Yorubaland in today’s South-west and contributed principally to
the collapse of the Yoruba’s Oyo Empire.
One
of the effects of the Fulani political and military expansion was to clear a
way for the southward movement of the pastoralists as they sought to exploit
the vastly grassy sub-humid Middle Belt during the dry season.
Another
effect which persists up to the present date is that Nigeria’s other ethnic
groups remain fearful and suspicious of an alleged Fulani domination and
expansionist ambition. This effect is even more so in the Middle Belt, placed
geo-politically in the North as a group of minorities.
The
Fulani pastoral expansion culminated in the sedentarisation of many of them in
the Middle Belt and the nomadic exploration of the zone by others. The
sedentarisation thus led to indigene-settler dichotomy and consequent conflicts
over land and access to political powers at the state and local levels.
For
instance, this is the case in Taraba State and Plateau State between the Fulani
and such groups as the Mambila and the Berom.
So,
while there exists evident ecological degradation and resource competition
playing as drivers of the conflict, the history of distrust and tension, in
which Nigeria is steeped, continues to draw out the conflict, and heavily
impacts the capacity of the state to deliver any solution that is commonly
acceptable.
So,
not surprising, while many critics of open grazing had demanded restricted
pastoralism, Ruga still met huge opposition from suspicious groups even outside
of the states that have signed up. Consequently, the federal government
suspended the programme.
Fears
of ‘expansionist’ agenda
Commenting
for this report (before Tuesday’s suspension of Ruga), Yinka Odumakin,
spokesperson for Afenifere, a Yoruba socio-political organisation, told PREMIUM
TIMES: “Ruga is an expansionist agenda of the Fulani across Nigeria along with
the ‘Fulanisation’ agenda spoken of by Obasanjo (former President Olusegun
Obasanjo). It is an agenda of conquest and domination. We don’t need Fulanised
settlement(s). It is all part of elevating Fulani above others.
“They
first dealt with the Hausa (referring to the Jihad) …and then Yoruba before
they were stopped in Osogbo. They now want to start from where they stopped. It
(pastoralism) is a private business. What is the federal government’s
business?”
But
for decades the government has supported crop farmers with public resources,
others would argue.
The
Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) also resolutely opposed to Ruga, citing
lack of consultation in the process.
Although
Ruga was only planned for states that signed up for it, CAN spokesperson Bayo
Oladeji told PREMIUM TIMES that the programme should even be more decentralised
such that “it is only for local government areas where it is wanted” even
within a state that signed up.
“You
can’t solve a problem by creating another one,” he said and recalled the
repeated explanation of the Buhari administration that the herdsmen attacking
local farming communities were foreigners: “Are they creating Ruga for
foreigners?”
National
newspapers like the Punch and the Tribune have also condemned the Ruga plan in
their editorials.
Benue
and Ekiti states, among others, also said they would not accept Ruga amid
widespread opposition by the natives.
But
Mr Adesina replied them: “All the states and groups rejecting Ruga, you can’t
reject what you have not been offered in the first place. It is only for those
that are interested and apply.”
Hate driven?
The
Presidency told PREMIUM TIMES opposition to Ruga was driven by hate.
According
to Mr Adesina, “The critics are talking out of hatred and malice. We should be
less suspicious and accommodate each other. If you don’t want Ruga, what do you
want? I have asked them. They keep quiet.”
But
Messrs Odumakin and Oladeji were separately asked what solution they would
proffer.
For
Mr Odumakin, individuals should apply to state governments for ranches. “But we
are against any Fulani territory or settlement in any of our (Yoruba) soil.”
But
Mr Oladeji asked that CAN be consulted first.
“When
we get to the bridge. We’ll cross it,” the CAN spokesperson said. “Let them
call us first.”
Support
from other quarters
Meanwhile,
on Tuesday, Plateau State Governor Simon Lalong sounded strongly in defence of
the Ruga programme, which he considered the same as a ranching policy.
“I
think the Ruga thing should not be anything that should bring any controversy
…we have said that the only solution that can address some of these insecurity
issues is the ranching policy,’ said Mr Lalong. He added that other tribes
could benefit from the Ruga plan as pastoralists too.
“Livestock
rearing is not a prerogative of one tribe. Everybody must get involved, and
that is what we had done in our state when we registered for it.”
In
a series of tweet on Monday, civil society leader Oluseun Onigbinde, also
weighed in on the Ruga debate, saying “honestly, we need to slow down on the
RUGA vitriol. We are the ones that said we don’t want open grazing.
“FG
is paying willing states for lands for grazing within a space. Isn’t that what
Ruga is?
But
he regretted the communication handling: “However, FG is late with the
communication …as usual FG is in firefighting mode.”
At
any rate, the Ruga programme has now hit the rocks, leaving the federal
government with the Osinbajo plan, which involves mainly Northern states and
some in the Middle Belt and Southern Nigeria for clusters of ranches.
Based
on Mr Odumakin’s submission, the demand is that individual herdsmen should
acquire land for ranching. What is rejected, then, is “any federal
government-backed” location or settlement hosting a cluster of Fulani pastoral
families by whatever nomenclature.
Although
clearer and more encompassing, this what the Osinbajo plan envisions. So were
there other plans even in the years before the Buhari administration?
The
sense in such a plan, other than the Odumakin proposal, is to enable dedicated
infrastructure and support services, which may not be possible for individuals
to acquire themselves or for government to procure for them in a scenario of
scattered ranches.
North’s
ecological problem untreated
In
any case, both the Ruga and Mr Osinbajo’s NLTP are weak with regards to action
towards combating the severe ecological problem of desert encroachment in the
country’s North-west and North-east.
Massive
parts of land in those regions are lost annually to the desertification,
thereby decreasing resources needed for farming and compelling herdsmen to move
southwards especially during dry seasons.
It
is thought that addressing this problem would reduce the pressure on the Fulani
herdsmen to migrate southwards and, subsequently, de-escalate the intense
competition for resources in the Middle Belt and Southern Nigeria.
Source: Premiumtimesng
No comments:
Post a Comment