Efficacy of the Ekiti State Antigrazing Law: Key Stakeholders' Perspectives

Abstract

The study examines the perceived efficacy of the Ekiti state Anti-grazing Law (EAGL) as a strategy for managing farmers-herders conflict among stakeholders. Quantitative information was obtained from 148 crop farmers and 73 Fulani pastoralists selected through a multi-stage sampling procedure, while a total of five Focus Group Discussion sessions and In-depth Interviews were also conducted. Analyses of results were carried out using frequency counts meant-test and Tobit regression. A significant proportion (82.4%; 90.4%) of crop farmers and herdsmen, respectively had a high level of knowledge of the EAGL, perceived the EAGL to have substantial limitations (97.3% crop farmers; 100.0% herdsmen) as measures adopted for conflict management, with poor consultation and mobilization of stakeholders as the most rated factor. Also, 70.3% of crop farmers, but only 8.2% of herdsmen rated the efficacy of the EAGL as high. Farmers and herdsmen were significantly different in their perceived limitation (t = 12.44) and efficacy (t = 11.84) of the EAGL. Years of experience (β = 0.102), farm size (β = 0.0001), herd size (β = -0.112) and perceived limitation (β = 0.228) and being a crop farmer (β = 6.689) were predictors of the perceived efficacy of the EAGL. A robust stakeholder analysis and engagement is advocated for the sustainable management of conflicts and commons in future interventions.

Stressors and Resilience within the Cassava Value Chain in Nigeria: Preferred Cassava Variety Traits and Response Strategies of Men and Women to Inform Breeding

“…It has been stated that farmers' output would continue to decline unless there was a way to stop the herders from depending on farmers' crops for feeding their livestock [80]. This finding is consistent with a recent study, which indicates that herder-farmer conflicts constitute a serious threat to the sustainability of common pool resources, other natural resources and, hence, food security, because the majority of farmers, for fear of attack, can no longer farm freely and harvest their farm produce [81].…”