Feed the Future Nigeria Agricultural Extension & Advisory Services

Nigeria Agricultural Extension and Advisory Services Conflict Assessment

FEED THE FUTURE NIGERIA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION AND ADVISORY SERVICES ACTIVITY

Conflict Assessment

July 2020

Submission Date: July 8, 2020 Contract Number: 72062020C00001 Activity Start Date and End Date: May 25, 2020 to May 24, 2025 COR Name: Charles Iyangbe

Submitted by: Jennifer Snow, Associate Director, Agriculture, Resilience, & Water

Winrock International

2101 Riverfront Drive, Little Rock, AR 72202 Tel: +1 501-280-3073

Email: [email protected]
This document was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development Nigeria (USAID/Nigeria).

1

2

Table of Contents

3

ACRONYMS

AEAS APC
Feed the Future Nigeria Agricultural Extension and Advisory Services Activity All Progressive’s Congress
CSOs FEWSNET FTF
Civil Society Organizations Famine Early Warning Systems Network Feed the Future

GDP

Gross Domestic Product

GON ICT IS
Government of Nigeria Information and Communication Technology Islamic State

LGA

Local Government Area

MEL MEND NDA
Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta Niger Delta Avengers
NEMA NGOs OECD PDP
National Emergency Management Agency Non-Governmental Organizations Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development People’s Democratic Party
PIND PLWD SALW SEMA SME
Partnership Initiatives in the Niger Delta Persons Living with Disabilities Small Arms and Light Weapons State Emergency Management Agency Small or Medium Enterprise

UN

United Nations

UN OCHA UPCDP USAID VC
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Assistance Uppsala Conflict Data Program U.S. Agency for International Development Value Chain

ZOI

Zone of Influence

4

1. INTRODUCTION/EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Feed the Future (FTF) Nigeria Agricultural Extension and Advisory Services (AEAS) Activity is leveraging the power of Nigerian entrepreneurship to facilitate learning, replication, and scale around alternative models of extension to increase access and adoption of agricultural technologies for two million smallholder producers in the FTF focus states of Benue, Cross River, Delta, Ebonyi, Kaduna, Kebbi, and Niger and target value chains (VCs) of maize, rice, soy, cowpea, and aquaculture.

Across Nigeria, conflicts or disputes are common and can be related to ethnic, religious, demographic, cultural, political, economic, or civic tensions – or more probably – a combination of these. Such conflicts occur at urban, rural, or national levels, and could involve disputes over farmlands, ponds, rivers, or ranches.¹Conflict is always multilayered and complex, especially where there is a competition for resources.

The seven states within the AEAS zone of influence (ZOI) are very diverse, but there are common causes of conflict that run through all the target states. Primary drivers of conflict in Nigeria include:

•

Natural resource disputes and increasing competition for land and resources, made more difficult as a result of climate change

••••••

Violent extremist organizations Ethnic and religious divisions Economic and social exclusion and poverty – particularly for women and youth Political antagonism born of mistrust, corruption, and lack of transparency Increased availability of unregulated small and light weapons More recently, COVID-19
This conflict assessment outlines the conflicts and underlying causes within in the ZOI for the AEAS Activity, particularly as they relate to work in the agriculture sector. Given time constraints and COVID- related limitations to in-country travel and in-person gatherings, this assessment was approached as a “rapid assessment,” providing a bigger picture analysis of the major causes of conflict, risk factors, and implications across the country. Limited first-hand information was able to be collected at the state level.

This data was used to examine the latent, active and post-conflict phases of conflict and underlying causes in each of the target states, so as to create the enabling environment for the project’s success and a “Do No Harm” approach. This document will be a living document and can be updated as work progresses on AEAS. Specific dimensions of conflict – particularly as related to security, agriculture, natural resources, climate change, gender, youth, and economic conditions – will be analyzed at every stage of the project, from work planning through implementation and monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL) activities.

2. OBJECTIVE AND METHODOLOGY

Objective

This conflict assessment intends to provide detailed understanding of the local conflict dynamics, to

¹International Journal of Education Research, Vol. 6 No. 6, June 2018.

5

enable AEAS to understand and address the underlying causes of conflict related to violence and identify and support opportunities for peacebuilding.

AEAS will use a conflict lens in the design of interventions, first, to “do no harm;” second, to mitigate rather than fuel conflict; and third, to create a positive peace-building environment.

Methodology

This rapid conflict assessment utilizes a case study approach in investigating the dynamics of past and trending localized conflicts located within agrarian communities in the AEAS target states (see Table 1).

Target States²

Table 1: Target States and Regions

Region

State

North-West Middle Belt South-South South-East
Kaduna, Kebbi Niger, Benue Cross River and Delta Ebonyi

Data Collection

Both primary and secondary sources of data collection were utilized in this rapid assessment. The secondary sources feature existing literature and reports from international organizations like the Famine Early Warning Systems Network (FEWSNET), Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UPCDP), and United

²Princewell, T., “To keep Nigeria one: A task we all believe in?” Vanguard, July 24, 2019.

6

Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Assistance (UN OCHA), the World Bank, Oxfam, Transparency International, the U.S. Institute of Peace, International Crisis Group, U.S Department of State, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the Government of Nigeria (GON), and many others. The primary sources of data collection consisted of mostly interviews – key informant interviews, conducted virtually on the internet, and with phone calls. This report also drew from the West Africa Trade and Investment Hub conflict assessment (completed in 2019) and is referenced accordingly.

Sample Size, Population, Techniques

The original design of this assessment included a target population covering three categories of respondents:

Category A – Farmers, marketers, and distributors of farm products Category B – Government Officials from the various State Ministries of Agriculture, as well as NGOs Category C – Security personnel, agro-rangers

Given a limited timeframe to complete the assessment and constraints to in-country travel due to COVID-19, a small group of respondents -- 10 per state (70 total), were envisaged for this assessment.

Non-random (purposive and snowballing) techniques were used, with reliance on referrals from local representatives in the various states, beginning with the respective State Ministries of Agriculture, and then experts and resource persons from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and civil society organizations (CSOs).

Data Analysis

The analysis for this assessment adopts the 2016 U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) Conflict Diagnostic Model.³Specifically, it juxtaposes existing literature from the aforementioned secondary sources, with the responses from the qualitative interviews conducted with respondents from the seven states, and acquired with phone calls and web-based research. This data was used to examine the latent, active and post-conflict phases of conflict and underlying causes in each of the target states, so as to create the enabling environment for the project’s success and a “Do No Harm” approach.

Limitations due to COVID-19

The COVID-19 situation in Nigeria continues to be a high-risk factor, and the nationwide restriction of movement in Nigeria (through the end of June 2020) consequently created limitations to accessing substantial qualitative data from the potential respondents on a face-to-face basis. Alternatively, the assessment adjusted to conduct interviews with respondents via phone and virtually. The interview guide was uploaded on Google docs for intended respondents to fill to the best of their ability and knowledge.

The method of data collection for this assessment also came with challenges in contacting farmers in the rural communities within the target states, most of who cannot be reached by phone or email. This led to the exclusion of most of the respondents in Category A (outlined in the methodology) which would have been useful in balancing the feedback from the respondents, presenting more conflict-sensitive empirical results.

³“Conflict Diagnostic Considerations for Food for Peace,” Tetra Tech Company for USAID, September 21, 2016.

7

The qualitative data collection also experienced some delays from respondents, most of whom delayed before answering calls or filling out the interview guide. The methodology for this assessment outlined 3 categories of respondents. Not being able to access all the categories of respondents due to the limitation created by COVID and time constraints was balanced with existing literature.

Applicability for the project

This document serves as an initial guide for the project as it considers partnerships, geographic targeting, and activity planning during the initial project startup period and in Y1 – and will be a living document which can updated as in-country conditions change and the project evolves.

Specific dimensions of conflict – particularly as related to security, agriculture, natural resources, climate change, gender, youth, and economic conditions – will be analyzed at every stage of the project, from work planning through implementation and monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL) activities.

3. SUMMARY OF CONFLICT FACTORS IN NIGERIA

This rapid conflict assessment’s preliminary findings grouped the risk factors into three main categories: natural risks (e.g., environmental factors, climate change); man-made risk factors (agricultural/land disputes, extremist groups, ethnic/religious context, social exclusion, politics/governance, ); and economic risk factors (poverty, unemployment, and more recently – COVID-19) (see Figure 1). Economic factors are often an underlying driver, affecting both the man-made and natural risks (and vice versa). While most of the identified risk factors tend to have some regional undertones, one thing all the states/regions have in common is the economic risk factor, making it the most serious of the three.

Figure 1: Three Categories of Risk Factors

The Uppasala Conflict Data Program (UPCDP) cites that between 2014-2019, Nigeria experienced 32,390 deaths due to conflict.⁴While the vast majority of these were in northeast Nigeria, conflict related deaths occurred throughout the country. Conflict leading to death in Nigeria is driven by many causes, but especially ethnic and religious tensions, particularly the conflict with Boko Haram, which led to 9,357 of the deaths during this period of time.⁵

⁴Information obtained from Uppsala Conflict Data Program website, ucdp.uu.se, on July 7, 2020. ⁵Ibid

8

The map below highlights regions of Nigeria based on security risk: highest risk (red), high risk (orange), and medium risk (green). AEAS will not operate in any of the highest risk areas.

In its 2019 conflict assessment, the USAID West Africa Trade and Investment Hub highlighted the following:

Beginning in 2016, violence and general insecurity rose significantly in the Niger Delta. Conflict dynamics in the Niger Delta are primarily fueled by an amalgamation of criminality (including robbery, piracy and kidnapping), cult and gang violence, election violence, ethnic and communal violence, and land disputes, all of which feed into and are exacerbated by a resurgence in militancy.

International Crisis Group identifies four violence triggers that feature throughout the Niger Delta: intense competition between the All Progressive’s Congress (APC) and the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) for control in politically strategic states; local rivalries between former and incumbent governors; existing farmer-herder or ethno-religious tensions; and the presence of cult groups that commit violence on behalf of politicians and political parties.⁶

In the Middle Belt and North Central regions, inter-communal and ethno-religious conflict have led to cycles of conflict that have turned deadly over the years, causing widespread insecurity and destabilizing urban and rural population centers. In the Middle Belt region, pastoralist conflict between farmers and nomadic herdsmen over access to resources — water, land and pasture — has become Nigeria’s key security challenge, causing widespread violence and destruction of property and farmland. These pastoralist conflicts often take on an ethno-religious dimension, pitting Christian farming communities against Muslim pastoralists, and one ethnic group against another. Communal violence over land has been driven by unclear border demarcation and boundary disputes, as well as other issues such as chieftaincy disputes.

In recent years, these dynamics have been exacerbated by militia attacks, lacking government response, and 2018 laws banning open grazing in Benue and Taraba. Additionally, the spread of small arms and light weapons in Nigeria, from the Niger Delta to the Middle Belt to the Northeast, have also contributed

⁶“Nigeria’s 2019 Elections: Six States to Watch,” International Crisis Group, December 2018.

9

to the lethality of these conflicts. Farmer-herder conflict has claimed significantly more lives than the Boko Haram insurgency and has displaced thousands.⁷

Natural Risk Factors and Agricultural and Natural Resource Disputes

The effects of climate change and environmental factors like desertification, drought, and the drying of Lake Chad in the North, combined with the activities of Boko Haram in the North Eastern region, has made cattle grazing difficult, and has driven herders to migrate southwards to exploit the rich grazing areas of the higher rainfall zones with less worries of possible attacks on herds. These environmental disasters and resulting migration have led to heightened tensions beyond the Middle Belt region (which used to be the epicenter of the farmer-herder conflict), increasing the prevalence of violent clashes in struggle over land resources. These conflicts are now appearing in the Southern regions, affecting States like Delta, Enugu, Ekiti, Ondo, and Osun.