Just when I thought that I had made my final contribution to the controversy over cattle colonies (see “No, no to cattle colonies”, The PUNCH, January 30, 2018), two recent developments have made it necessary to revisit the topic. Both developments involve the Federal Government’s attempts at clarification.
First, in two successive speeches, President Muhammadu Buhari addressed the herdsmen’s attacks and the subject of cattle colonies. In his speech on February 6, 2018, in Lafia, Nasarawa State, where he had visited primarily to launch a series of new projects, he said, “The attacks by suspected herdsmen and other bandits will not be tolerated”, and then went on to “appeal to all Nigerians to refrain from attacks”. He rightly sympathised with “all the affected victims of these barbaric acts”. He also assured the audience that “additional resources” had been deployed “to all affected areas to maintain law and order”. Needless to say, several attacks by suspected herdsmen have occurred in Benue and Southern Kaduna since Buhari’s assurances.
Three features of Buhari’s speech deserve further gloss. The herdsmen were not identified as Fulani. They are lumped with “other bandits” to diffuse the focus on herdsmen. There was no direct reference to Benue State next door, where the herdsmen’s atrocities have been most vicious. This avoidance strategy is in keeping with Buhari’s characteristic aloofness.
It was in Buhari’s response to the Catholic Bishops’ complaints on Thursday, February 8, 2018, that he was forced to talk about cattle colonies. The bishops had visited Buhari to confront him on the lapses of his administration; to criticise the lopsidedness in his appointments and his disrespect of the country’s Federal Character principle; to decry the insecurity of lives and property in the land; and to reject cattle colonies as a solution to the conflicts between herdsmen and farmers. The bishops did not end their speech without endorsing ranching as a viable alternative to grazing reserve or cattle colonies.
Buhari’s response implied that cattle colonies had come to stay. He said the government had consulted widely with stakeholders before deciding on cattle colonies. He further stressed that there was no intention to colonise any group. While the government’s intention might not include colonisation of the land, the landowners have genuine fears about what might happen down the road.
Buhari’s statement was an affirmation of the position of the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, Chief Audu Ogbeh, when he appeared on The Core, hosted by Kadaria Ahmed and aired on Channels Television between 8:00pm and 10:00pm last Wednesday, February 7, 2018.
The minister provided further information on the justification for cattle colonies. First, he justified the term by pointing out its usage in agriculture as in bee colony, for example. However, my research found that nowhere in the world is the word “colony” attached to cattle for grazing purposes. To be sure, there is a Cattle Colony in Pakistan, and it is the only one so called that I know. It is the centre of cattle and meat trade in the town of Bin Qasim in Karachi, where abattoirs and meat warehouses are located. It is also the dairy products shopping and supply centre in Karachi. The cattle there are brought in from different locations.
Second, the minister also gave reasons why cattle colonies were more appropriate for Nigeria than ranches. There would be far too many ranches in each state, if the nearly 20 million heads of cattle in Nigeria were to be accommodated at the rate of about 300 cattle per ranch. Instead, he argued, it would be better to have thousands of cattle at a time in each colony.
Third, the minister indicated that he sent requests for land to all 36 state governors for the establishment of cattle colonies. Twenty of them either said no land or did not respond at all. In total, 16 states, all in the North, provided land. I urge the minister to make do with the land provided by the consenting states.
By the way, Ethiopia was cited during the programme as an example of a cattle rearing nation where free grazing is practised, without ranches. It is not true. Most livestock farmers in Ethiopia have ranches. The government also has ranches. True, there are also free grazing fields, but they are in areas where there are no crop plantations, and they are managed by a supervisory body.
Ethiopia has a human population of over 102 million but a much larger livestock population of nearly 120 million-approximately 55 million cows, 52 million goats and sheep, and about 20 million horses, donkeys, camels, and chicken. Yet, these animals do not destroy crops nor do their herders kill farmers.
It must be emphasised that agriculture is the foundation of Ethiopia’s economy. It accounts for half of its GDP, about 84 per cent of its total exports, and 80 per cent of total employment. Given Ethiopia’s susceptibility to drought, this feat would not have been achievable without effective planning. There is a robust Livestock Management Policy within the overall Agricultural Policy. Such overarching and sector specific agricultural policies are needed in order to avoid shifting ad hoc solutions from time to time, as is the case in Nigeria.
But let me ask the minister a few questions: Who are the owners of these cows and where do they reside? If a cattle owner lives in Kano and inherited or acquired his cows there, why go to Ekiti or Abia State to look for a cattle colony for his cows? Why does the government not work with the consenting states and the cow owners to develop a scheme by which fodder and water could be provided in the colonies donated by the 16 Northern states?
The questions I just raised take me back to the 1950s, when the Cooperative Union and affiliated cooperative societies were established in Idanre in present day Ondo State. My father and other farmers in our village had serious problems with insects and pests on their cocoa farms. The Cooperative Union responded by providing insecticides to the farmers. I was among the first batch of trainees on how to mix and spray the insecticides on cocoa trees. Our duty was to train the farmers on how to perform those tasks.
There are two lessons from this story. First, the Cooperative Union did not tell the farmers to shift to a different location to avoid the pests, like cattle owners are now being assisted to move their cattle further south in search of fodder. Second, the insecticides were not free. The farmers paid back with their produce from which the cost of the insecticides was deducted. I know this because I recorded the transactions for my father.
It must be recognised that what really escalated the controversy over cattle colonies is not necessarily the ethnic rivalries between the North and the South. Rather, it is the government’s insensitivity to the people’s sensibilities. In how many words should one tell the President and his minister that the rejection of cattle colonies in the South is grounded in historical and political realities? The rejection is a code for the people’s resistance to what they don’t like about the present government, which includes the items on the list read to the President by the Catholic Bishops.
Moreover, it is also a rejection of the President’s aloofness and delayed reaction to burning national issues, especially the killings and destruction of farmlands by the herdsmen and the outright rejection of the call for restructuring, championed by advocates from the South. This is not to dismiss ethnicity, regional, and identity concerns as important factors in the people’s consideration. The point is that these identity markers would not have mattered had the President not foregrounded them in his lopsided appointments and delayed reaction to Southern concerns.
There are indications that the President is waking up to these concerns. He is most welcome.
END
Be the first to comment