BusinessDay 21 Jan 2018

C002D5556
22
Sunday 21 January 2018
BD
SUNDAY
Panorama
with CHUKS OLUIGBO
chuks.oluigbo@businessdayonline.com (08116759816)
Ending herder-farmer
conflicts is a national priority
The government of
President Muhammadu
Buhari cannot
continue to pretend
to be helpless
regarding how to resolve the
escalating deadly conflicts between
herdsmen and farmers
in many parts of Nigeria, particularly
in the most affected
states of the Middle Belt. The
government’s response to
these conflicts has been suspect,
but even worse, the
idea of cattle colonies suggests
there may be ulterior motives.
Even if well-intentioned, the
choice of the word ‘colony’ in
the 21st century is most unfortunate.
President Buhari, if he
is sincere, must do everything
within his powers to disabuse
the minds of many Nigerians
who see the tardiness with
which he has handled these
conflicts not as a sign of ineptitude
but as glaring indicators of
his tacit complicity in the activities
of the killer herdsmen.
For a government that is
serious to permanently resolve
these conflicts, there are
several reports to study while
adopting temporary measures
to contain further escalation.
Some of these reports were
commissioned by successive
governments while some have
been produced by indepen-
dent groups.
In this regard, I think the
International Crisis Group, a
transnational non-profit, nongovernmental
organization
that carries out field research on
violent conflicts and advances
policies to prevent, mitigate or
resolve them, has done a good
job of tracing the root causes,
evolution, impact and implications
of these conflicts as well
as recommending measures
to end them. The report, ‘Herders
against Farmers: Nigeria’s
Expanding Deadly Conflict’,
produced in September 2017,
“is based on interviews conducted
in September 2016 and
July 2017 with a range of actors
and stakeholders, including
leaders and representatives of
pastoralist and farmer organisations,
officials of federal and
state governments, security
officers, leaders of civil society
organisations and local vigilante
groups, as well as victims
of the violence in Adamawa,
Benue, Borno, Ekiti, Enugu,
Kaduna and Nasarawa states”.
Regarding the principal
causes and aggravating factors
behind the escalating conflicts,
the Group identifies climatic
changes (frequent droughts
and desertification); population
growth (loss of northern
grazing lands to the expansion
of human settlements); technological
and economic changes
(new livestock and farming
practices); crime (rural banditry
and cattle rustling); political and
ethnic strife (intensified by the
spread of illicit firearms); and
cultural changes (the collapse
of traditional conflict management
mechanisms), but also a
dysfunctional legal regime that
has allowed crime to go unpunished
and, consequently, has
encouraged both farmers and
herders to take laws into their
own hands.
To resolve these conflicts,
the International Crisis Group
suggests five steps which include,
in the short term:
“Strengthen security arrangements
for herders and
farming communities especially
in the north-central zone:
this will require that governments
and security agencies
sustain campaigns against
cattle rustling and rural banditry;
improve early-warning
systems; maintain operational
readiness of rural-based police
and other security units;
encourage communication
and collaboration with local
authorities; and tighten control
of production, circulation and
possession of illicit firearms
and ammunition, especially
automatic rifles, including by
strengthening cross-border
cooperation with neighbouring
countries’ security forces;
“Establish or strengthen
conflict mediation, resolution,
reconciliation and peacebuilding
mechanisms: this should be
done at state and local government
levels, and also within
rural communities particularly
in areas that have been most
affected by conflict;
“Establish grazing reserves
in consenting states and improve
livestock production
and management in order to
minimise contacts and friction
between herders and farmers:
this will entail developing grazing
reserves in the ten northern
states where governments
have already earmarked lands
for this purpose; formulating
and implementing the ten-year
National Ranch Development
Plan proposed by a stakeholders
forum facilitated by the
UN Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO) in April 2017;
and encouraging livestock producers’
buy-in through easier
access to credit from financial
institutions.”
In the longer term, it suggests
the federal and state governments
should consider the
following:
“Address environmental
factors that are driving
herders’ migration to the
south: this will require stepping
up implementation of
programs under the Great
Green Wall Initiative for
the Sahara and the Sahel,
a trans-African project designed
to restore droughtand-desert
degraded environments
and livelihoods
including in Nigeria’s far
northern belt; and developing
strategies for mitigating
climate change impact in
the far northern states;
“Coordinate with neighbours
to stem cross-border
movement of non-Nigerian
armed herders: Nigeria
should work with Cameroon,
Chad and Niger (the
Lake Chad basin countries)
to regulate movements
across borders, particularly
of cattle rustlers, armed
herders and others that
have been identified as aggravating
internal tension
and insecurity in Nigeria.”
These recommendations,
in my view, contain
no ambiguity. The government
should put them in a
basket, together with other
such recommendations, like
the report of the Gabriel
Suswam-led Committee on
Grazing Reserves set up by
former President Goodluck
Jonathan’s government in
April 2014, and even by
committees set up by the
Buhari government, weigh
them, sieve the chaff and
implement the substance.
Being that desertification
is a major driver of
herders’ southward movement,
what should the government
be doing? The
International Crisis Group
mentions the Great Green
Wall Initiative for the Sahara
and the Sahel, which
initially called for planting
a 15km wide belt of trees,
running 7,775km across
nine African countries from
Senegal to Djibouti, but was
later broadened to include
building water-retention
ponds and other basic infrastructure,
establishing
agricultural production
systems, and promoting
other income-generating
activities. There is also the
National Agency for the Great
Green Wall, which aims to
rehabilitate 22,500 sq km of
degraded land by 2020 but
whose impact thus far has
not been felt.
But an individual Nigerian
– Dr. Newton Jibunoh,
environmental activist and
founder of Fight Against Desert
Encroachment (FADE)
– once achieved a milestone
in this regard, with adequate
support. I recently had the
opportunity of interviewing
Jibunoh, whom CNN called
‘Sahara explorer taming the
desert’, and he spoke about
how he began early enough,
after his exploration of the
Sahara, to cry out about the
devastating effects desert
encroachment would have
on Nigeria if it was not tackled
headlong. To demonstrate that
it could be done, he went to
the Kano State government
and asked to be given areas
of the state most affected by
the desert, and from there
to Ben-Gurion University in
Israel to study the science of
desertification.
“When I returned, I had
to do a pilot project to show
Nigerians how they can drive
back the desert and get back
the grazing fields for the nomadic
Fulani. British High
Commission gave me money,
International Energy gave
me money, Kano State government
chipped in money,
and I started. It took me four
years to bring back grazing
fields in Makoda, and people
that migrated out returned,”
Jibunoh said in the interview.
“I used that to show what
could be done because the
whole of Israel was recovered
from the Negev Desert. If
Israel could do that, why can’t
we do it Nigeria? And how
much then did I use in building
water irrigation, sprinkler
irrigation, in planting the
trees and in grazing the land?
Under N70 million.”
The question to ask is
why this model was not replicated
in other adversely
affected parts of Kano State
– or in other affected states
for that matter. It is true that
Nigeria’s failure to effectively
utilise its abundant natural
and human resources
over the decades has been
its greatest undoing.
Let’s talk about politics
LUCY P. MARCUS
ample, that his “nuclear
button” is “much bigger
and more powerful” than
that of North Korean leader
Kim Jong-un. He has also
challenged longstanding
alliances, including NATO,
dismantled critical regulations,
and withdrawn from
international agreements.
And the hits keep coming.
Just last week, Trump
crudely insultedcitizens
of Haiti, El Salvador, and
African states, reportedly
lamenting that the US must
accept immigrants from
these “shithole countries.” It
should come as no surprise,
then, that Trump’s approval
ratings are the weakest of
any president at this point
in his term, despite strong
economic growth, a soaring
stock market, and low
unemployment.
It isn’t only US politics
that has become inescapable.
The Brexit vote in
June 2016 has thrown the
United Kingdom and the
European Union into a tailspin,
forcing businesses to
guess what will come next
– and, in many cases, spurring
them to shift their operations
to other countries.
Meanwhile, autocratic
regimes have been on the
rise, from Turkey, once the
Muslim world’s beacon of
democracy, to Poland, once
Europe’s post-communist
darling. Chinese President
Xi Jinping has established
himself as the most powerful
leader since Mao Zedong,
cracking down on
any semblance of dissent.
And Russian President
Vladimir Putin has his fingers
in a growing number
of geopolitical pies – including,
mounting evidence
suggests, the US.
If we’ve learned anything
in the past year, it is
that politics and business
are inextricably linked.
Business shapes politics
directly, with industries
pouring money into campaigns
in an attempt to
advance their own interests,
and indirectly, with
innovations that push the
boundaries of regulations.
Likewise, political developments
have a major
impact on business. One
cannot assess financial markets
without considering
political risk and monetary
policy, or retail strategy
without weighing consumer
confidence, which is influenced
by the political
environment. (After last
summer’s general election
in the UK, consumer confidence
sank to its lowest
level since the Brexit referendum.)
Immigration policies
are fundamental to the
operation of labor markets.
Public investment strategies,
particularly with regard
to upgrading and modernizing
infrastructure, are
integral to how businesses
plan their own investment.
The list goes on.
With every decision our
governments make having
a direct and measurable
impact on our businesses
and our lives as consumers,
the belief that we can simply
avoid politics, that the
bad news or irresponsible
leadership will simply pass,
is untenable. In fact, the
only real option is to do the
opposite: we must work to
gain a better understanding
of the issues at stake, many
of which are complex and
interconnected. And we
must become more persistent
in attempting to
shape political outcomes,
and more resolute in ensuring
that good businesses
aren’t overwhelmed by bad
politics.
And it is up to all of us
– not just corporate strategists
and legislators, but also
citizens and consumers – to
deepen our understanding
of the connections between
business and politics. Only
then can we ensure that
policy debates and decisions
are based on fact, and
that we are well-equipped
to judge those who make
decisions, engage with
them, and ultimately hold
them accountable. The alternative
is to relinquish
our ability to defend our
own interests.
Poor corporate governance,
I have argued, was
one of the biggest risks that
business faced in 2017. In
many ways, that remains a
top concern. But it has now
been compounded by extreme
political uncertainty.
How companies respond
will shape all our futures. In
the US, for example, there is
a temptation to capitalize
on the Trump administration’s
deregulation drive in
areas including oil drilling,
consumer protection, immigration,
trade policy, and
environmental safeguards.
But what may seem like
a boon for business in the
Marcus, founder
and CEO
of Marcus
Venture
Consulting,
Ltd., is Professor of Leadership
and Governance at IE
Business School and a nonexecutive
board director of
Atlantia SpA.
Nobody wants to discuss
politics. When I give a
talk or my writing touches
on politics, I am frequently
asked to avoid the topic altogether
and focus only on
the business angle. Given
the combination of disempowerment,
frustration, and
general news fatigue that
many are feeling, the request
is understandable. But it is
also impossible to agree to it.
In a world where a week
can feel like a month, it
is difficult to fathom the
extent to which Donald
Trump has destabilized
the United States and the
world. In just one year as
president, Trump has childishly
taunted other world
leaders, tweeting, for exshort
term may do irreparable
long-term damage,
with implications for every
sector, every investor, and
every consumer.
It is the responsibility
of all of us – board members,
shareholders, employees,
consumers – to
force businesses to look
beyond short-term profits
and fulfill their broader
corporate responsibility.
We cannot afford to throw
up our hands and simply
hope for the best.
And lest we feel that our
voices will not be heard, we
would do well to consider
recent efforts to catalyze
change. The #MeToo campaign
has amounted to a
reckoning for many powerful
perpetrators of sexual
assault. The Shareholder
Spring marked a ratcheting
up of scrutiny by investors
of executive remuneration
packages. Instances of abusive
labor conditions and
large-scale corruption have
been brought to light, leading
to real change in some
unexpected areas (like FIFA).
Ignoring politics won’t
solve our problems. Engaging
constructively just
might.
(c): Project Syndicate