By James Aduku Odaudu, PhD
The Federal Government’s proposed ranching policy has raised important questions about livestock development, land ownership, security and the future of communities across Nigeria’s Middle Belt.
While modernising Nigeria’s livestock industry is a legitimate national development objective, the government must also address concerns from communities in areas that have experienced prolonged farmer-herder conflicts, displacement and insecurity.
The debate, therefore, should not be reduced to whether Nigerians support or oppose ranching. The more fundamental questions concern where ranches will be established, whose land will be used, who will benefit and what safeguards will protect communities affected by insecurity.
Why the Middle Belt Is Asking Questions
The Federal Government has identified Benue, Plateau, Nasarawa, Kaduna, Adamawa and the Federal Capital Territory among areas affected by conflict and targeted for the pilot phase of its livestock transformation programme.
That geographical concentration has generated concerns in parts of the Middle Belt because many communities in these areas have experienced some of Nigeria’s most serious disputes involving land, farmer-herder relations, communal violence and displacement.
In parts of Kogi State, particularly communities close to the Benue border, farmers have also faced security concerns that have affected agricultural activities and community life.
The question being raised by affected communities is straightforward: if the objective is to modernise Nigeria’s livestock industry, what objective criteria were used to select the pilot locations?
Why were these particular areas chosen? What alternatives were considered? And why should a national livestock transformation programme be concentrated in territories where land ownership and security are already highly sensitive issues?
Ranching Must Not Become a Land Dispute
There is a legitimate case for modern livestock production in Nigeria. Ranching, improved veterinary services, animal identification, better breeding systems and stronger livestock value chains could contribute to food security, employment and economic growth.
The Federal Government has also been pursuing wider agricultural and livestock development initiatives. The Bureau Journal previously reported on the US Embassy’s Freedom 250 initiative aimed at strengthening agricultural trade, investment and technical cooperation between Nigeria and the United States, including attention to livestock development and agricultural technology.
But agricultural modernisation must operate within the framework of land rights, constitutional protections and existing community interests.
The concern is not necessarily that ranching itself is unacceptable. Rather, communities want assurances that livestock infrastructure will not result in permanent occupation, reclassification or transfer of land without lawful ownership arrangements and meaningful consultation.
Insecurity Must Not Create a Path to Permanent Land Loss
One of the most sensitive questions concerns communities that have been displaced by violence.
A farmer who has been forced away from his farm does not automatically lose his legitimate interest in that land because he has been displaced to an internally displaced persons’ camp.
Similarly, a family whose ancestral home has been destroyed does not surrender its inheritance simply because insecurity has prevented its return.
This is why the government should be particularly cautious when considering permanent land-use arrangements in areas affected by prolonged conflict.
The principle should be simple: violence must never become an indirect instrument of land acquisition.
The Bureau Journal has previously examined the wider security challenges facing Nigerian communities, including farmer-herder conflicts, banditry and communal violence, in its explainer on Nigeria’s State Police Bill and the security challenges driving the reform debate.
Government Should Publish Land Details
The Federal Government can reduce suspicion around the ranching programme by making the relevant information available to the public.
That should include maps of proposed ranching locations, land titles, ownership structures, financing arrangements, intended beneficiaries and the legal instruments under which the projects will operate.
Government should also establish whether proposed sites are occupied, communally held, privately owned, subject to customary interests or affected by unresolved ownership disputes.
Where displaced communities have legitimate claims to the land, their rights should be addressed before permanent alternative land-use arrangements are considered.
A Return-Before-Allocation Principle
One proposal emerging from the debate is what could be described as a return-before-allocation principle.
Under such an approach, communities displaced by violence would first be given the security conditions and institutional support necessary to return to their homes and farms.
Homes would need to be rebuilt. Farms would need to become accessible. Schools, healthcare facilities, markets, roads and water infrastructure would need to be restored.
Only after those issues have been addressed should government consider permanent alternative land-use arrangements in affected territories, and even then only through lawful procedures and genuine consultation with communities.
This approach would not prevent livestock development. Instead, it would ensure that livestock transformation does not become disconnected from the recovery of communities that have suffered from insecurity.
The Middle Belt Needs Recovery, Not Ranches Alone
The Middle Belt’s challenges extend beyond livestock production.
A farmer who has lost access to his farm needs security to return. A child who has lost access to education needs a functioning school. A community whose clinic was destroyed needs healthcare. Families whose homes were burnt need reconstruction, while victims of violence need justice.
A ranch cannot substitute for any of these.
That is why livestock development should be integrated into a broader Middle Belt Recovery and Reconstruction Framework covering security, agriculture, resettlement, roads, schools, healthcare, markets, water infrastructure, livelihoods and justice.
The argument is especially important given the continuing pressure on Nigeria’s food system. The Bureau Journal recently reported that Kogi recorded Nigeria’s highest food inflation rate, while Benue also recorded one of the country’s highest rates during the period covered by the report.
Food production cannot be separated from the security of farmers and the protection of agricultural land. Communities cannot sustainably produce food if farmers are unable to safely access their farms.
Governors Have a Responsibility
Governors of affected states also have an important role to play in the process.
They should demand full disclosure of proposed land-use arrangements, detailed maps of ranching areas, information on land ownership and tenure, environmental and social assessments, and clear guarantees concerning displaced citizens.
State governments should also ensure that local communities are meaningfully consulted before major land-use decisions are taken.
Recent developments in Kogi demonstrate how state governments are simultaneously pursuing agricultural investment and value addition. The Bureau Journal reported that the Kogi Government is planning a cashew processing plant to boost agricultural value addition and investment.
Such initiatives show that agricultural transformation can take different forms, from crop processing and commercial farming to livestock development. What matters is that each intervention respects local communities and creates measurable economic value.
National Assembly Must Scrutinise the Policy
Members of the National Assembly from affected states should also demand detailed briefings from the Federal Ministry of Livestock Development.
Their scrutiny should go beyond projected economic benefits to include questions concerning land ownership, community consultation, security, resettlement, financing, beneficiaries, environmental impact and accountability.
Parliamentary oversight is particularly important when public resources and potentially sensitive land arrangements are involved.
The Debate Should Not Be Reduced to Ethnicity
The controversy should also be approached carefully to avoid turning a policy debate into an ethnic confrontation.
There are peaceful Fulani Nigerians who are legitimate cattle owners, farmers, professionals and business people. They are entitled to the protection of the Nigerian state like every other citizen.
At the same time, individuals who engage in killings, kidnapping, cattle rustling, destruction of property or other criminal activities should face the law regardless of their ethnicity or regional identity.
No community should be collectively blamed for crimes committed by individuals or criminal groups.
The central issues are therefore law, land, security, citizenship and accountability.
Livestock Development and Community Recovery Can Coexist
Nigeria does not have to choose between modern livestock production and the protection of communities affected by conflict.
The two objectives can proceed together if the Federal Government adopts a transparent framework that modernises livestock production while protecting land rights and supporting the return and recovery of displaced communities.
Other livestock-related policies also demonstrate the broader potential of the sector. The Bureau Journal previously reported on the Federal Government’s National Apiculture Policy initiative aimed at expanding honey production, exports and agricultural opportunities.
Such initiatives point to the wider economic potential of Nigeria’s livestock and agricultural sectors when development is built around productivity, investment, technology and value addition.
Transparency Can Reduce Suspicion
The Federal Government has an opportunity to demonstrate that its ranching policy is an economic and agricultural reform rather than a territorial project.
It can do so through transparent land records, published maps, clearly defined beneficiaries, community participation, protection of displaced persons and strict adherence to constitutional and statutory requirements.
Government must also communicate clearly with citizens and address legitimate concerns before implementation begins in communities where trust has already been weakened by years of violence.
The Central Question: Whose Land?
The Middle Belt does not necessarily reject livestock transformation, modern ranching or peaceful pastoralism.
What communities are demanding is clarity over how land will be acquired, who will own it, who will benefit and what protections will apply to people whose lives have already been disrupted by insecurity.
No development policy should make victims of violence feel that their suffering has made their land more valuable to someone else.
That should be one of the central tests of any national ranching policy implemented in conflict-affected parts of Nigeria.
Modernising livestock production is a legitimate national objective. But development must be built on the principles of lawful land ownership, security, consultation, justice and respect for citizens.
The Middle Belt does not have to reject development to demand answers. It has to demand answers precisely because development must protect the people it is intended to serve.
Dr James Aduku Odaudu is a development administrator and can be reached at jamesaduku@gmail.com.
Get breaking news and latest updates directly on WhatsApp
