Constraints to Increasing Agricultural Productivity in Nigeria: A Review

Table 15. Parameters for classifying severity of land degradation in Nigeria
Severity
Mapped
(km
Population
(million)
Population
%
Population
density
Degraded
2 ) (km 2 )
None 28,185 4.230 3.5 150.09 0 0.00
Light 342,917 23.548 19.2 68.67 8,578 0.94
Moderate 39,440 4.115 3.4 104.33 6,518 0.71
Severe 240,495 30.266 24.7 125.85 64,631 7.07
Very Severe 255,167 59.863 48.8 234.60 176,544 19.31
Unclassified 7,871 0.554 0.5 70.38 0 0.00
TOTALS 914,075 122.576 100.0 134.10 256,271 28.04
Source: .
Land-Tenure System
34
Degraded %
Land is relatively abundant in Nigeria, but there are limitations to gaining access to land for
productive use. The key factor is the land-tenure system prevailing in different parts of the
country. The land-tenure system is the body of laws, contracts, and arrangements by which
people gain access to land for agriculture and other uses. The land-tenure system in Nigeria
varies from one place to another. The communal system of land ownership, in which individual
ownership of land is embedded in group or kinship ownership, prevails among most ethnic
groups in the south (Onyebinama 2004).
A few significant factors have promoted individual land ownership, especially in southern
Nigeria. Increase in population pressure has raised land values and has created incentives to
sell portions of lands. Demand for land for nonagricultural uses (especially industrial and
residential developments) has also been a factor, and some landowners have disposed of urban
and peri-urban lands for fear that government might take over these parcels under the Land Use
Act provisions (Onyebinama 2004).
Group ownership of land in Nigeria has been associated with such problems as limited tenure
security, restrictions on farmers’ mobility, and the inevitable fragmentation of holdings among
heirs (Onyebinama 2004; NARP 1994; also see Table 16). In addition, group ownership restricts
access rights of community members outside the owning group, a situation that limits the use of
land as collateral for agricultural credits. But group ownership has also been credited with such
benefits as preserving traditional land-use practices such as bush fallowing, which has helped to
retard problems of land degradation.
The Land Use Act (LUA) of 1978 sought to correct some of the inherent weaknesses in the
group ownership of land by transferring the custodianship of land to state and local government
authorities. In practice, however, these government authorities have often abused the allocation
of lands placed in their trust (Onyebinama 2004). In particular, productive lands have been
allocated to individuals who have cared little about farming or land conservation.
Under the LUA of 1978, land is owned by the government on behalf of the community. In reality,
however, cultivated lands are still occupied by family members under customary laws. The
community head acts as the custodian of the land. The individual farmer has virtually complete
control over his holding. Thus, the areas mainly under communal control are unallocated land,
grazing rights to such land, and access to water (NARP 1994).