THREE apex sociocultural organisations in Benue have rejected the Federal Government’s proposed pilot implementation of its National Ranching Policy in the state.
The groups described the proposed ranching programme as a potential threat to land rights, food security, constitutional federalism and the security of Benue communities.
The position was contained in a joint paper by Mzough U Tiv (MUT), Ochetoha K’Idoma (OKI) and Omi Ny’Igede (ONI).
The organisations said their position followed the announcement by the Minister of Livestock Development, Alhaji Idi Mukhtar Maiha, on Aug. 11.
Maiha had announced Benue as one of six states selected for the pilot implementation of the Federal Government’s ranching policy.
The other states, according to the organisations, are Plateau, Nasarawa, Kaduna, Adamawa and the Federal Capital Territory.
The groups said they supported modernisation of Nigeria’s livestock sector and recognised ranching as a better economic model than nomadic pastoralism.
They, however, rejected what they described as the permanent appropriation of ancestral agricultural land for pastoral settlements.
They also opposed the creation of what they described as ethnically exclusive pastoral settlements within farming communities.
The organisations said the Federal Government should not impose such programmes on states without consultation, consent and compliance with existing laws.
They argued that any federal livestock programme involving land within a state must comply with the Constitution, the Land Use Act and relevant state laws.
According to them, land administration is vested in state governors under Section 1 of the Land Use Act.
They also cited the 2017 Benue Open Grazing Prohibition and Ranches Establishment Law as a major legal consideration.
The groups said the law had been upheld by the Federal High Court in Makurdi in the case of Attorney-General of Benue State and another versus Attorney-General of the Federation and two others.
They argued that any federal ranching initiative in Benue must operate within the provisions of the state law.
The organisations said the Minister’s announcement of Benue as a pilot state raised questions about the extent of consultation with the state government.
They said neither the Benue Government nor the state House of Assembly had, to their knowledge, publicly indicated consent to the proposed pilot.
The groups also expressed concern about the security implications of establishing pastoral settlements in communities affected by farmer-herder violence.
They claimed that more than 7,000 people had been killed in attacks by armed militias and criminal elements in Benue since 2015.
They further claimed that more than 1.5 million people had been displaced and that 17 of the state’s 23 local government areas had experienced serious security challenges.
The organisations said government’s priority should be to secure affected communities, disarm and prosecute perpetrators, resettle displaced persons and restore destroyed livelihoods.
They questioned the rationale for selecting states with high incidences of farmer-herder conflicts as pilot locations for permanent pastoral settlements.
According to them, such an approach could create a perception that communities affected by violence were being asked to accommodate new settlements.
The organisations also faulted the consultation process preceding the policy.
They said the Minister had disclosed consultations with more than 34 pastoral organisations and pastoralist leaders under the Sultan of Sokoto.
They, however, alleged that farming communities, traditional institutions and sociocultural organisations in Benue were not consulted.
The groups specifically said MUT, OKI and ONI, as well as the Tiv and Idoma traditional councils, were not consulted.
They also said they were unaware of any consultation with the Benue governor or the state House of Assembly.
They argued that a conflict-resolution policy that consulted one side without adequately engaging affected farming communities could deepen mistrust.
Another major concern raised by the organisations was the nature of the proposed “Renewed Hope Livestock Villages.”
They said the Federal Government’s description of the proposed settlements went beyond conventional ranching.
According to them, the planned facilities include housing, schools, primary healthcare centres, solar lighting, water infrastructure and veterinary clinics.
Others, they said, include mosques, markets, dairy processing facilities and renewable energy systems.
The groups argued that such infrastructure could transform the proposed ranches into permanent settlements rather than agricultural facilities.
They said the distinction was important because permanent settlements could eventually generate demands for political representation, traditional authority, land expansion and administrative structures.
The organisations therefore challenged the Federal Government to clarify whether the initiative was intended to establish ranches or permanent towns.
They also questioned the proposed rehabilitation of 417 grazing reserves across the country.
According to them, many of the reserves were created during the First Republic and had roots in colonial-era pastoral arrangements.
They said many had subsequently been occupied by farming communities, absorbed by urban expansion or put to other uses.
The organisations argued that the Federal Government had not published a comprehensive inventory showing the location, present status, occupancy and legal standing of the 417 reserves.
They said rehabilitation without such an audit could trigger disputes over land ownership and occupation.
The groups also linked the current policy to previous Federal Government livestock settlement initiatives.
They traced what they described as a policy lineage from cattle colonies in 2018 to Rural Grazing Areas (RUGA) in 2019.
They also cited the National Livestock Transformation Plan (NLTP) and the current National Ranching Policy as successive versions of the same approach.
According to them, the initiatives had different names but retained elements involving the designation of land for pastoral activities and associated infrastructure.
They said the current pilot states were substantially similar to those previously selected under the NLTP.
The organisations argued that the repeated rebranding of the initiatives should prompt government to reassess the underlying policy design.
They also raised concerns about the potential impact of the ranching policy on Benue’s agricultural economy.
The groups described Benue as Nigeria’s “Food Basket” and said the state was a major producer of crops including yam, cassava, soybean, sesame, rice and citrus.
They argued that converting productive agricultural land into pastoral reserves could undermine national food-security objectives.
According to them, livestock development should complement rather than compete with crop production.
The organisations further criticised what they described as the cattle-centric orientation of the Federal Government’s livestock policy.
They said the policy appeared heavily focused on cattle ranching, grazing reserves, feedlots, abattoirs and large-scale pastoral production.
They argued that insufficient attention had been given to poultry, piggery, sheep and goat production, rabbit farming, aquaculture and other livestock enterprises.
The groups said these smaller livestock sectors provided livelihoods for millions of Nigerians, particularly women and youths.
They therefore called for an inclusive livestock policy that would support existing smallholder farmers across Nigeria.
The organisations also questioned what they described as the limited attention given to livestock farmers already operating legally in Benue.
They cited poultry farmers in Otukpo, goat farmers in Gboko and fish farmers in Oju as examples of existing livestock producers.
According to them, such farmers should have equal access to government funding, infrastructure, training and investment opportunities.
The groups argued that livestock development should not be framed exclusively around the farmer-herder conflict.
They said the broader objective should be to build an inclusive livestock economy capable of supporting smallholder farmers, women, youths and commercial producers.
The organisations also raised concerns about governance and security arrangements for the proposed livestock villages.
They cited developments in Niger State as a warning that traditional pastoral governance structures could become vulnerable to criminal exploitation.
The groups referred to the decision by the Niger Government to strip Fulani traditional leaders, known as Ardos, of chieftaincy authority over alleged links to security challenges.
They said the Federal Government had not sufficiently explained the security architecture that would govern the proposed livestock settlements.
They asked for details on host-community oversight, conflict-resolution mechanisms, boundary enforcement, accountability procedures and possible exit arrangements.
They also questioned how the government would respond if a proposed livestock settlement became a source of insecurity.
The organisations described the absence of such safeguards as a major governance gap.
They further questioned the ownership and distribution of benefits arising from proposed international investments in Nigeria’s livestock sector.
The groups acknowledged reported investment commitments involving Brazilian livestock companies and discussions with international food companies.
They, however, asked who would own the resulting enterprises and where such investments would be located.
They argued that host communities should not surrender agricultural land without corresponding economic benefits, participation and ownership opportunities.
The organisations warned against what they described as an arrangement where land would be provided by farming communities, cattle owned by pastoral interests and profits captured by large investors.
They said such an arrangement could deepen perceptions of inequity and land dispossession.
The three organisations consequently called for a review of the proposed pilot before implementation in Benue.
They insisted that any livestock development programme in the state must respect the Benue Open Grazing Prohibition and Ranches Establishment Law.
They also demanded meaningful consultation with the state government, traditional institutions, farming communities and other relevant stakeholders.
The organisations called for transparent land audits before any decision was taken on existing grazing reserves.
They further demanded that displaced farming communities should be prioritised in government’s security, rehabilitation and agricultural recovery programmes.
They said livestock modernisation should be pursued through privately established ranches and other models consistent with Nigerian law and local circumstances.
The groups also advocated an inclusive livestock development framework covering cattle, sheep, goats, poultry, piggery, fisheries and other livestock subsectors.
They urged the Federal Government to make women, youths and smallholder livestock farmers beneficiaries of livestock investments.
The organisations maintained that their position was not motivated by ethnic hostility towards pastoralists.
They said pastoralists deserved secure livelihoods and access to economic opportunities within the framework of the Nigerian Constitution and applicable laws.
They nevertheless maintained that livestock development could not justify the unilateral acquisition or allocation of ancestral agricultural land.
The groups urged President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, Gov. Hyacinth Alia and the Minister of Livestock Development to reconsider the proposed Benue pilot.
They called for dialogue involving all affected communities and stakeholders before any implementation.
They said the objective should be to develop a livestock sector that promotes economic growth, food security, peaceful coexistence and respect for land rights.
The organisations concluded that Benue could support livestock modernisation, but not through a policy they described as threatening its constitutional rights, agricultural base and community security.
They urged the Federal Government to replace what they called a top-down approach with a participatory model based on consultation, legality, security and economic inclusion.
M.P
Tags: Benue groups Reject FG ranching pilot
Comments
Start the conversation about this story.