The controversy over how to deal with the time bomb that defines the frequent violent clashes between herders and crop farmers is an unfortunate example of our habitual politicisation of issues of economic and social importance. What it requires is simply getting our bearing right and calling a spade by its proper name.
What are the issues? Herders naturally promote their economic interests by taking care of their cattle, shepherding them to good pasture not minding the economic interests of crop farmers and their farmlands which their cattle feed on indiscriminately. Naturally too, farmers resent the impunity that appears to characterise the actions of herders. They are resentful because it appears to them that herders are subject to no laws or to different codes which protect them from justice. After all, they see many of these herders with AK-47 flung around their shoulders. Do they have the legally approved licence to carry such lethal weapons in pursuit of their economic interests at the expense of the farmer’s interests?
While some farmers resist confrontation, deciding to have their gods avenge the ill-treatment in the hands of a powerful foe, others have decided to take their destinies into their hands, fighting with whatever they have, what they regard as economic oppression and tyranny of the mighty and powerful. In the midst of what appears to be a raging silent battle for economic and cultural survival, amidst all that have been our terrible lot at the dawn of the 21st century, there are conflicting reports of prospects of governmental intervention. One such was the idea of a grazing land, which has recently come up in media reports but which has now been denied again in media reports. My intention here is to offer some clarifications which I hope can lead to a morally and economically adequate resolution.
First, we need to understand the commonalities and the differences between farming and herding. In terms of commonalities, I would like to suggest that they are both farming activities. We entertain no controversy when we talk about crop farming and livestock farming. Farming is defined commonly as the activity of growing crops or raising livestock for food or as raw materials. The synonyms for farming include agriculture, cultivation and land management.
Second, from the foregoing it follows that farming has a number of divisions or sectors including, livestock, grain production, crop production, land management, etc. and whoever is engaged in any of these activities is by definition a farmer. By the same token, a farm is defined as an area of land that is devoted to the activity of producing food crops or raising animals for food and/or raw materials. For farming, farms or farmlands are necessities. And a farmer therefore is someone engaged in the business of farming, which as we just agreed, include cultivating crops and raising livestock. I suggest that herding is one category of farming and a herder is one category of farmer.
What’s the difference? Herding is an agricultural or farming device to manage animals domesticated for supply of food or raw materials. While crop farming is space-confined, herding can but doesn’t have to be unconfined. Furthermore, while livestock farming is farming for subsistence and for sale by farm owners, herding is usually done by third parties working for livestock farmers or by individual families as small holders.
Herding has been described as a way of life. It is claimed that herders are culturally nomadic and they cannot live domesticated life. This may be true to some extent. However, it is not supported by experience of recent times. There are stories in the holy scriptures about middle easterners of Abrahamic religions living nomads lives, including Abraham and Lot, Jacob and his in-law, Joseph and his brothers, Moses and his in-law, and David and his Jesse brothers.
But where is the nomadic way of life in present day Israel! Or with contemporary Bedouin Arabs? Many have settled for urban life enjoying modern facilities including schools and health care. No condition, they say, is permanent and a culture that condemns a large number of human groups to a life of perpetual hardship and suffering is not worth keeping. By the way, as our Minister of Agriculture once observed, the cattle reared in the harsh conditions of nomadic herding are also an unhappy lot.
If herding is another method of raising domesticated animals, then it is livestock farming. It prevailed as a method under two related realities which no longer exist. First, there was large expanse of land most of which was unclaimed by any specific groups or individuals. Second, the land was unsuitable for crop farming and the shrub and plants on the land was good for the animals. Neither of these realities now exists.
The land that Nigerian herders frequent with their cattle belong to individuals and families, though by virtue of military fiat much of these lands now belong to state governments. And the approval for the use of most of these lands is now vested in the state governments. It follows that the lands are not free for use as grazing land by herders.
While small land owners get away with the use of the land once claimed by their ancestors, commercial farmers can only have access to the quantity of land they need by lease or purchase from the government. Herders hardly do any of these and they freely graze their cattle on the lands trespassing on farmlands with impunity.
This accounts for the frequent clashes that have occurred between herders and farmers who cultivate the lands across the length and breadth of the country. It is incorrect to see this as a north-south conflict. Rather it is a conflict between the economic interests of crop farmers from north and south on the one hand and livestock farmers who practise nomadic herding in the north and south.
Clarifying the matter this way enables us to deal with it in a rational way. First, both livestock farmers and crop farmers need suitable land for their farming activities. Second, the former can still use herders once they have a legitimate claim to adequate land that does not conflict with the valid claims of crop farmers. Third, having a legitimate claim to land means that livestock farmers, just as their crop farming counterparts, lease or purchase specific parcels of land for their farming operations.
This is the economically rational approach to livestock farming.This is what private ranches are about in modern livestock farming. The advantage of ranches includes the opportunity to graze cattle and other animals in well nurtured environment with adequate facilities for education and healthcare for those that still choose herding as a job. Furthermore, the cattle that they raise by this method can be given adequate care, with good feeding grass and shrub specifically planted for the purpose as well as veterinary care for the animals.
The denial that there is a grazing land bill before NASS is a great relief. It would not have worked if the goal was to stop the frequent violent clashes between farmers and herders and it would have aggravated the tension. The beginning of wisdom and resolution of the crisis is the recognition that it is too late in this day and age to subscribe to the practice of open range grazing land for cattle or other domestic animals. For besides the conflict it generates, it is also economically unviable. At a time when we are encouraging commercial crop farming, it is counterproductive to encourage open grazing which destroys farmlands and pit crop farmers against herders.
Livestock farmers who employ the services of herders must not be allowed to put their economic interest above national interest. The nation has a primary interest in harmonious relationship among its various groups. In addition, it also has an abiding interest in the economic prosperity of all its citizens. Private ranching as a globally tested method of livestock farming is the best approach to the promotion of the interests of livestock farmers and herders that work for them as well as the interests of crop farmers.
NATION
END
Be the first to comment