EFFECT OF LAND CONFLICT ON FOOD CROP PRODUCTION IN RURAL COMMUNITIES IN SOUTH-EASTERN NIGERIA

  • 0 Review(s)

Product Category: Projects

Product Code: 00009241

No of Pages: 163

No of Chapters: 1-5

File Format: Microsoft Word

Price :

₦10000

  • $


ABSTRACT

Agricultural commercialization, urbanization, land grabbing and rapid population growth among others have placed undue pressures on demand for land in South-East Nigeria. These factors in turn have led to changes in land use patterns with outcomes such as the reduced land fallow periods, decreased access to water, land degradation, deforestation, and overgrazing. The concomitant effect of these changes in land use is increased conflicts, and nearly all conflicts affect food security. This study on the effect of land conflict on food crop production in rural communities in South-East, Nigeria, was carried out with 405 respondents drawn from three states in South-East Nigeria namely, Imo, Anambra, and Ebonyi states. Well-structured questionnaires were administered to the participants. Data were analyzed using both descriptive statistics (frequency, percentages, mean and mean score) and inferential statistics (analysis of variance). The results revealed that the most predominant type of tenure system is the leasehold tenure system (83.95%), while the least is certificate of occupancy (14.81%). Inter-family conflict (x̄=3.85) was found to be the most prevalent type of land conflict while conflict between settlers and indigenes (x̄=2.03) was the least prevalent. Encroachment (x̄=3.59) was found to be the most perceived factor causing land conflict within the study area whereas illegal/improper uses of common property was perceived as the least cause of land conflict (x̄=2.00). The use of the village elders/traditional rulers (96.04%) was the commonest form of conflict resolution mechanism within the study area whereas the least common was the resort to age grades/women groups (41.98%). However, the use of village elders/traditional rulers was perceived to be the most effective conflict resolution mechanism (x̄=3.79) among the respondents. The perceived effects of land conflict on food crop production include reduced output, reduced income, reduced output, and food insecurity. Chief among the economic effects of land conflicts as perceived by the respondents is loss of lives and properties. Education, age, gender and income were found to have significant effect on the respondents’ perception of the most effective conflict resolution mechanism at 5% level. There was a significant difference in perception of increased input, increased output, food security, food insecurity and reduced income as effects of land conflict on food crop production among the respondents at 5% level. A significant difference in respondent’s perception about the causes of land conflicts was found also from the 3 states after testing at 5%. The study concluded that land conflicts affects food crop production in rural communities in South-East, Nigeria. It is therefore recommended that new policies which would ensure access to land and land tenure security for rural farmers be put in place. There is also need for peace education and conflict resolution skill building among rural farmers. This will enable them develop the dispositions which will influence them to behave peacefully.







TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                                                                                       

Title Page                                                                                                                    i

Declaration                                                                                                                 ii

Certification                                                                                                               iii

Dedication                                                                                                                  iv

Acknowledgement                                                                                                      v

Table of contents                                                                                                        vi

List of Tables                                                                                                              ix

List of Figures                                                                                                             xi

Abstract                                                                                                                      xii       

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1       Background Information                                                                                1

1.2       Statement Of The Problem                                                                             10

1.3       Research Questions                                                                                        12

1.4       Research Objectives                                                                                       12

1.5       Study Hypotheses                                                                                           14

1.6       Significance And Justification Of The Study                                                 14

1.8       Scope Of The Study                                                                                        15       

1.9       Definition Of Terms                                                                                       15

 

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW                                                              

2.1       Conceptual Review                                                                                         19

2.1.1    Land as natural resource                                                                                 19

2.1.2    Concept of land tenure system                                                                       19

2.1.3    Land tenure systems in Ibo land                                                                     21

2.1.4    Acquisition of land rights in Ibo land                                                             22

2.1.5    Land use reforms                                                                                            25

2.1.6    Objectives of land reforms or agrarian reforms                                             26

2.1.7    The land use act of 1978                                                                                 27

2.1.8    Land tenure system in other African countries                                              28

2.1.9    Defining food security                                                                                    30

2.1.10  Measuring food security                                                                                 32

2.1.11  Land tenure and food security                                                                                   33

2.1.12  Food insecurity and communal conflict                                                         34

2.1.13  Gender and land tenure systems                                                                     35

2.1.14  Land grabbing                                                                                                 37

2.1.15  Conceptualizing land conflict                                                                         38

2.1.16  land disputes                                                                                                   40

2.1.17  Causes of land conflict                                                                                   40

2.1.18  Types of land conflicts                                                                                   43

2.1.19  Consequences of land conflict                                                                       44

2.1.20  Classification of land conflicts                                                                       45

2.1.21  Land conflict resolution mechanisms                                                             45

2.1.22  Formal conflict settlement methods and their limitations                              46

2.1.23  Informal or non-state justice systems                                                             47

2.1.24  Customary conflict resolution mechanism                                                     48

2.1.25  Characteristics of customary justice systems                                                 48

2.1.26   Factors influencing people’s choice and uses of informal justice            

system                                                                                                             52

2.1.27  Religious-based land conflict resolution mechanism                                     54

2.1.28  Cultural dimension of conflict resolution                                                       55

2.1.29  Igbo indigenous conflict resolution mechanisms                                           56

2.1.30  Oracles and resolution of dispute                                                                   57

2.1.31Nexus between land conflicts / tenure (in) security and land              

            governance                                                                                                     58

2.2       Review of Empirical Studies                                                                          58

2.3       Theoretical Framework                                                                                  67

2.3.1    Social conflict theory                                                                                     67

2.3.2    Theory of eco-violence                                                                                   68

2.4       Conceptual Framework                                                                                  70

 

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

3.1       Study Area                                                                                                      73

3.2       Study Population                                                                                            74

3.3       Sample Size And Sampling Procedure                                                           74

3.4       Data Collection                                                                                               76

3.5       Validity Of Instrument                                                                                   77

3.6       Reliability Of Instrument                                                                                77

3.7       Data Analysis                                                                                                  78

3.8       Testing Of Hypothesis                                                                                    79

 

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1       Socio-Economic Characteristics Of The Households                                    82

4.1.1    Age                                                                                                                 82

4.1.2    Gender                                                                                                            83

4.1.3    Marital Status                                                                                                 83

4.1.4    Educational level                                                                                            84

4.1.5    Household Size                                                                                               84

4.1.6    Religion of Respondents                                                                                84

4.1.7    Income                                                                                                                        85

4.1.8    Annual Input Cost                                                                                           85

4.2       Type Of Tenure Systems In The Study Area                                                 87

4.3       Prevalent Land Conflict In The Study Area                                                   89

4.4       Perceived Factors Causing Land Conflicts                                                    91

4.5       Various Forms Of Conflict Resolution Mechanisms Used In

The Study Area And The Most Effective Conflict Resolution

Mechanisms As Perceived By The Respondents Within

The Study Area                                                                                        94

                                                                                          

4.6       Perceived Effects Of Land Conflict On Food Crop Production

In The Study Area Perceived Economic Effects Of Land Conflicts

In The Study Area                                                                                    95

4.9       Hypothesis Testing                                                                                   99

4.9.1    Hypothesis 1                                                                                            99

4.9.2    Hypothesis 2:                                                                                           100

4.9.3    Hypothesis 3:                                                                                           103

4.9.4    Hypothesis 4:                                                                                           106

 

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1       Conclusion                                                                                              109

5.2       Recommendations                                                                                  110

 

REFERENCES                                                                                                 111

APPENDIX                                                                                                       122

 

 

 


 

LIST OF TABLES

4.1:                  Distribution of respondents (household heads) according

to their socio-economic characteristics                                              86

 

4.2:                  Distribution of the various tenure systems within the study area     88

 

4.3:                  Mean distribution of respondents based on prevalent conflicts in

                        the study area                                                                                      90

 

4.4:                  Mean distribution of respondents based on perceived factors

                        causing conflicts in the study area                                                      93

 

4.5:                  Distribution of respondents based on the various forms of

conflict resolution mechanisms in the study area                               95

 

4.6:                  Distribution of respondents based on perceived effectiveness of

the various forms of conflict resolution mechanisms used in the

study area                                                                                            95

 

4.7:                  Distribution of respondents based on perceived effects of

land conflicts on food crop production in the study area                       97

 

4.8:                  Distribution of respondents based on perceived economic

effects of land conflicts in the study area                                          98

 

4.9:                  Multivariate analysis of variance to test the respondents’

perception of the most effective forms of conflict resolution

mechanisms used in the study area                                                  100

 

4.10:                Analysis of variance result of the test of difference on

                        the perceived effect of land conflict on food crop

production by farmers in the three selected states                           101

 

4.11:                Test of difference on the perceived effects of land conflict

                        on food crop production---Summary of Duncan Multiple

                        Range Tests                                                                                    103

 

4.12:                Analysis of variance result of the test of difference in

                        respondents’ perception of most effective conflict

                        resolution mechanism in the three selected states                          104

 

4.13:                Test of Difference on the Most Effective Conflict

                        Resolution

Mechanisms in the three Selected States---Summary

of Duncan Multiple Range Tests                                                        105

 

4.14:                Analysis of variance result of the test of difference in the

farmers’ perception of causes of land conflict in the study area     107

 

4.15:                Test of Difference in the Farmers’ Perception of Causes of Land

                        Conflict in the study area---Summary of Duncan Multiple Range

                        Tests                                                                                                    108

 

 

 




 

LIST OF FIGURES

2.1:                  Land tenure and food security linkage                                               33

2.2:                  Framework for assessing the effect of land conflict and

                        conflict resolution mechanism on food production                           70

3.1:                  Map of South-East Nigeria                                                                 74

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION


1.1           BACKGROUND OF THE  STUDY

Land is a crucial developmental discourse because it has long been known as a major factor in wealth, agricultural production and economic growth. Land is a valuable, limited resource of immense economic, political, cultural, and symbolic significance (United State Agency for International Development, 2013). It is, without a doubt, the single most significant factor in Nigeria's economic growth. It is the most precious asset, particularly in rural areas where agriculture is the primary source of income. As a key factor of production, land provides opportunities for wealth creation and thus serves as a catalyst for escaping poverty. It is extremely important in food production and income generation. (Commission for Africa, 2005 in Toulmin, 2008; Nwachukwu, 2019).

 

The centrality of land to rural development and food production in Nigeria is incontestable. In the past, rural communities across Nigeria were blessed with land in abundance. This situation, however, is changing particularly in South- East Nigeria due to population growth, migration, land grabbing, climate change and host of other factors. Rural dwellers across the nation are increasingly competing for access to arable land. Conflict over land is thereby becoming a routine across the nation. Other interconnected factors like weak land governance institutions, poor management of land conflict, land commodification, unreliable land information, and rising demand for rural land for bio-fuel tend to worsen the matter (Urmilla, 2010). Land conflicts, affect rural communities severely, since they mostly rely on farm produce for survival (Anyoha, Chikaire, Ogueri, Utazi and Godson Ibeji, 2018). Whenever land conflict occurs, it comes with socio-economic effects, and in the worst-case situations, people are harmed and properties are destroyed (Wehrmann, 2008).

 

Nigeria's combined land and water area is 923,768 square kilometres, with land covering 910,768 square kilometres and water covering 13,000 square kilometres (Central Intelligence Agency Fact Book, 2005). It is bordered on the south by the Atlantic Ocean and on the north by the Sahelian countries of Niger and Chad. Agriculture is Nigeria's economic pillar, contributing over 45 percent of GDP and recruiting more than half of the population. The country's agricultural land area is projected to be 84 million hectares, with just 33 million hectares under cultivation currently. Nigeria is divided into six unique agro-ecological zones. These are the Mangrove Swamp, Guinea Savanna, Derived Savanna, Sudan Savanna, Sahel Savanna and Rainforest zones. Rainfall is bimodal in the Mangrove and Rainforest areas, as well as parts of the Derived savanna zone, and unimodal in the Guinea, Sudan, and Sahel savanna zones. The Sahel savanna region receives as little as 500 mm of annual rainfall, while the Mangrove Swamp zone receives about 3000 mm (National Programme for Agriculture and Food Security-NPAFS, 2010).

 

Land tenure refers to a set of rules created by societies to govern land access, usage, control, and transfer, as well as the obligations and restrictions that come with it. Individuals, families, societies, and organisations may be given rights under these laws, which may be defined by the state or by customs (Garvelink, 2012). According to Neef & Kirchmann (1999), land tenure, is a social concept that establishes rights and responsibilities between individuals and groups of individuals. It is the terms and conditions or arrangement under which a parcel of land is held. Land tenure refers to structures and arrangements that regulate access to land and control of land resources by individuals and groups within a given society. It also covers who can possess and use these tools, as well as how long they can do so for and under what conditions. Land tenure therefore aids in defining people's relationships to the land and the scope of their rights.

 

While there is a widespread assumption that the agricultural production and other productive activities are affected by numerous factors ranging from climatic conditions, government policies to physical conditions, land tenure security have been identified to be critical to agricultural production, food security and economic growth and development (Cousins and Hornby, 2006). Land tenure security is crucial for smallholders’ survival because they rely on access to land for their food security and sustainability. Food security according to Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2006) refers to the ability of households, cities, and the state to produce, buy, and distribute adequate food on a long-term. Thus, food security is hinged on the availability of land resources as well as the capacity of households to muster resources for the long-term production and distribution of food.

 

Whenever, members of a society have continuous physical and economic access to abundant, secure, and wholesome food that satisfies their daily nutritional requirements for a healthy existence, they are said to be food secured (FAO, 2006). The FAO classified food security into four distinct categories namely: food availability, access, stability, and utilization (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2017). Each of these categories describes a distinct feature of food security. The following is a typical explanation of the categories:

v  Availability: The focus here is on the availability of vital calories at the personal level, as well as the types of calories that are accessible nationally (e.g. cereals versus animal protein).

v  Access: Indicators for evaluating physical infrastructure for delivering food to market, as well as individual-level indicators for determining whether people have access to their daily calories requirements, are included in this group.

v  Stability: Dependence on food imports, domestic market volatility, and variance in irrigation-equipped land are all measured in this category. Food must be available to a community, household, or person at all times, and access should not be jeopardized by unexpected shocks or cyclical events.

v  Utilization: To achieve nutritional well-being, all physiological requirements must be fulfilled by adequate diet, clean water, sanitation, and health care.

Food insecurity can result from even minor changes in each of these dimensions. Conflict has been a major contributor to one or more of the aspects of food insecurity in many cases (FAO, 2017).

 

Tenure security according to Cotula, Toulmin and Quan (2006) refers to as the degree of conviction in not being unfairly dispossessed of land rights or the economic benefits that come with them. Without tenure security, resource poor farmers are considerably weakened in their ability to obtain enough food for meaningful livelihoods. Smallholders need secure tenure in order to make considerable improvement and invest in the land. The literature is replete with evidence that farm production tend to rise as land users perceive improvements to their property rights. Regardless of whether accommodated through a statutory tenure arrangement or a customary arrangement, farmers should be confident about their rights to access, utilize and benefit from their land. Whenever rural farmers feel that their privileges are secured, they tend to make important investments, such as increasing their crop portfolio, investing in farm technology and improved inputs. Secured tenure gives farmers the confidence to operate their farms with a lasting, business-mindset. But if farmers perceive that their land rights are not protected, they tend to limit investment and create make-shift plans.

 

Land tenure in most regions in sub-Saharan Africa, is classified as either regulated by customary or state/statutory rules.  Customary land tenure is governed by unwritten rules. It is largely elastic, negotiable, location-specific and based on local customs and norms. These systems are very dynamic and ever changing as a result of a variety of factors such as cultural exchanges, socioeconomic changes, and political developments (Ranger, 1983; Chanock, 1985). In Nigeria, customary land tenure systems are associated with descent and inheritance and are based on the norm of collective ownership (Fabusoro, Matsumobo and Teab, 2008).

 

Statutory or state-regulated land tenure regimes, in contrast, are typically anchored on written laws and procedures, acts of government and judicial rulings. Citizenship, nation-building, and constitutional freedom are the main underlying doctrine that underpin statutory or state-regulated land tenure regimes. Under this regime, titles or other means of ownership registration are used to validate and certify land rights.

 

Land tenure reform has been at the center of the development debate in sub-Saharan Africa.  Until recently, major international development agencies like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) had vigorously advocated formalization of tenure in developing countries. But in recent times, the World Bank recognized while formalization of tenure could be the best direction to go, a full blown formalization of tenure would increase conflict, insecurity and poverty in developed countries (Benjaminsen and Svarstad, 2010). Thus, the current direction in tenurial discourse is shifting from the concept of formalization and toward tenure security. Tenure security increases motivation for sustainable land use, thereby improving the welfare of the disadvantaged groups and mitigating the likelihood of violence.

 

Delininger  (2003)  notes  that  land  tenure  security will increase household incentives and also give them greater access to credit, which will not only allow them to invest but act as a reserve in the event of shock or disaster (Delininger and Binswanger, 1999; DFID, 2004; World Bank, 2003). Issues of access to land and control in any given society are of great sociological importance because it is a pointer to power relationships within the group. Among the Ibos of South-East Nigeria, land represents many things. According to Uchendu (1965), land symbolizes the realm of the earth-goddess, a last resting place for the dead, a place residence and livelihood asset. He further stated that land is the most important asset to the people. It is the basis of security which is passionately defended from being taken away. Ownership of land among Ibos is seen as a means of controlling key means of production and attaining higher social status, wealth, and power (Uchendu, 1965). The centrality of land in Ibo cosmology and political economy is evident in the importance of land resources to cultural rituals. Igbo customs such as marriage, naming ceremony, thanksgiving and prayer are replete with rituals which are tied to the land.

Meek (1937) captured the uniqueness of land in the Ibo jurisprudence in a very captivating way:

"Ala” is the fountain of human morality, and in consequence, a principal legal sanction. Homicide, kidnapping, poisoning, stealing, adultery [...] and all offences against Ala must be purged by rites to her. “Ala” deprives evil men of their lives, and her priests are the guardian of public morality. Laws are made in her name, and by her, Oaths are sworn. “Ala” is in fact, the unseen head of the Community" (Meek, 1937)”.

 

Again, he noted that the land-related taboos did not apply only to humans, but also to animals and other creatures on the planet. For instance, he noted thus:

"If a goat climbs on to the roof of a house, it is viewed as having committed an offense against “Ala” and was in the olden days [killed]. A cock that crows, or a hen that lays at night in an open space is killed It is ordained that a hen which hatches out a single chicken shall be deprived of its life.  Similarly, a cow which bears two calves must be taken out of the Community" (Meek, 1937).

 

Taylor, (1988) posits that individuals do not own land in traditional societies. It was either owned by a group of people, such as an extended family, a village, or community. Historically, land holding arrangement in Africa has changed over time. The earliest form of land tenure change in Africa dates back to colonization period. Owing to the widespread misconception that Africans were ignorant of land principles, the colonial governments appropriated communally owned property on the basis of freehold tenure and introduced a new system of land ownership which is mainly privatization of sole rights of access and management of land and natural resources.

 

This was intended to give the colonial government exclusive right over land and natural resources, with privatized land controlled by statute law based on the colonial masters' European laws and communal lands regulated by customary law. Upon independence, most African governments inherited a dual, unequal, and bureaucratic system of land tenure when they gained independence (Stewart, 2010).This was meant to allow the colonial government complete power of land and natural resources, with privatized land governed by statute law based on the colonial masters' European laws and communal lands governed by customary law. Upon independence, most African governments inherited a twin, uneven, and bureaucratic regime of land tenancy (Stewart, 2010).

 

In Nigeria, for instance, since independence, successive governments have implemented land reform policies, but these policies, have often neglected established customary and local structures, as well as the distributive concerns that underpin land tenure security (Cotula, Vermeueen, Leonard, and Keele, 2004).Following independence in 1962, the Northern Nigerian government adopted a land tenure law that gave all lands to the governors to maintain and manage for the region's use and benefit. Despite this rule, the government and individuals have had increasing difficulty securing land for development purposes (primarily in metropolitan areas). This situation aggravated active land speculation and communal clashes and prompting the General Olusegun Obasanjo-led Military Junta to set up the Land Reform Commission and the Constitution Drafting Committee in 1977. The Commission proposed that all underdeveloped territories be nationalized.

 

The then Government adopted their recommendations and promulgated a decree which has come to be known as the Land Use Act of 1978. This Decree was made an integral part of the 1979 Constitution, and then assimilated into the 1999 Constitution, to ensure that it cannot be quickly repealed by succeeding regimes. While the Land Use Decree made it easier for governments to procure land for planning purposes and reduced the cost of land compensation and related court battles for land, it has also developed a new set of problems in the field of land management in Nigeria since its inception.

 

Since it allowed land previously belonging to rural peoples to be forcibly taken away by a few well-connected people, the Land Use Act is seen as being inconsistent with the values of freedom and justice. Furthermore, those who possess an occupancy certificate do not have stable tenure under the constitution, since the Governor has the authority to revoke such certificates. In rural areas, the Land Use Act did not achieve its egalitarian objectives. However, land in rural areas increasingly, has become a source of contention in Nigeria and Sub-Saharan Africa at large (Cotula et al., 2004; Oyewamide, 2004). Land conflict is often caused by conflicting claims over inheritance, boundaries and rights between farmers, families and communities, and is becoming a common place across Nigeria rural communities.

 

In rural areas across Africa, land tenure is a significant cause of social conflict. (Cotula et al., 2004).Family and community dispute is often traced back to opposing claims over boundaries, inheritance and rights of access over land. Although there are in-built mechanisms for resolving land disputes in all societies, in Sub-Saharan Africa, the frequency and intensity of land conflict has increased in recent times. The reasons for increased incidence are not far-fetched. The causes are all related to increased land scarcity brought about by population demands, urbanization, land grabbing, agricultural intensification, and commercialization.

Nevertheless, an increasing body of evidence suggests both overt and indirect connections between conflict and food production. FAO (2002b) pointed out that wars and civil strife were the major causative factor for exceptional food emergencies experienced in 15 countries. Conflicts have adverse effects on food security in developed countries because they damage the agriculture sector and the economy as a whole.

 

Land conflict often have the potential to affect food security by causing food scarcities, which upset both agricultural input and productivity, reducing food supply, stock management, and marketing. Crops cannot be cultivated, weeded, or harvested depending on when the dispute occurs. This would have a major impact on agricultural productivity. During a war, large-scale devastation of crops, food supplies, livestock, and other properties can occur in food-producing areas, affecting food supply not only in these areas but also in neighboring areas. Food supply and connectivity are both reduced in a conflict situation when both are constrained.

 

Furthermore, land conflicts have the tendency to influence food security by inducing scarcity of food, which can upset both agricultural input and productivity, hence discouraging reducing food supply, stock management, marketing and reinvestment. Crops cannot be cultivated, weeded, or harvested depending on when and where the dispute occurs. This would have a major impact on agricultural productivity. During conflict, large-scale devastation of crops, food supplies, livestock, and other properties can occur in food-producing areas, affecting food production and supply not only in these areas but also in neighboring areas (Pierre and Fred, 2006).

Consequently, the farming populations tend to migrate, or completely abandon farming for other livelihood asset. Agriculture activities thus will be limited to subsistence, small-scale agriculture by those who survive, because apart from lack of motivation to invest intensely in production, the fear of being killed or molested in farmlands (in the case of women) by their adversaries is high. Despite the apparent nexus between land conflict, food security and rural development, vast majority of agricultural policies and project initiatives overlook the problems presented by pervasive land conflict and tenancy contradictions.

 

1.2       STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Despite Nigeria’s great potential with regards to increase in agricultural productivity, food security and rapid rural development, land and resource-based conflicts is increasingly becoming an obstacle to reaching these potentials. Agricultural commercialization, drought, climate change, rapid population growth, migration, land grabbing, and the pressure of achieving rural development have placed undue pressures on demand for land in Nigeria especially in South–East Nigeria. These factors have resulted in changes in land use patterns, such as increased crop production, shorter land fallow periods, reduced water availability, land erosion, deforestation, and overgrazing. Increased conflicts are side effects of these shifts in land use.

 

Land conflict destroys agricultural land; impede free movement and trade; upset markets; and forces people to flee their homes and means of production. In some cases, food insecurity and famines are vigorously used as weapons of war (Devereux et al., 2017). In most sub-Saharan African countries food security and rural development is increasingly being threatened by land disputes (Yamano and Delininger, 2005). According to Delininger and Castagnini (2006), land disputes have raised questions about the risk of food shortages and high poverty rate in affected areas of Sub-Saharan Africa. Land conflict always portends negative costs not just for the individuals but for the society at large. 

 

In extreme situations, it often leads to violent conflict, inter and intra-community bickering, abandonment of hectares of cultivatable farm lands, soil degradation, loss of lives and massive displacement of population. For the rural farmer, it frequently results to loss of production base, food insecurity, forced migration, loss of livelihood assets and extreme poverty. Furthermore, according to Voors et al., (2012) land conflict increase tenancy insecurity, have an effect on crop portfolio selection, and reduce land investments and transactions. In addition, when land dispute becomes protracted and is not properly managed, social stability, investment on agricultural input, diffusion of agricultural innovations, productivity, as well as rural development is undermined. The impact of conflict is far reaching. It includes the breakdown of social order, collapse of local markets, decay of physical infrastructure, alteration in the structure of local economy, poverty, disease and ultimately massive deaths.

 

The Ezza-Ezillo crisis in Ebonyi State is a good example. According to CLEEN Foundation, the conflict was caused by a disagreement in 2008 over ownership of a piece of land on which a telecommunication mast was erected. By the end of December, 2011, the disagreement had escalated, resulting to the killing of over 70 men, women and children. Other instances include Aguleri versus Umuleri (1920-1999); Onitsha and Obosi (2013); Ikenga Village verses Nkpor-Ogidi in Idemili LGA of Anambra State (2012-2016);  Ogbaku Community in Mbaitoli LGA of Imo State (since 1926), Ohekelem in Ngor-Okpala LGA versus Umuekeugo in Aboh Mbaise LGA of Imo State (since 1916)  (CLEEN Foundation, 2011; Institute for Peace and Conflict Resolution, 2017). Again, there is the boundary conflict between Adadama community in Abi Local Government Area of Cross River State and Amagu Community in Ikwo Local Government Area of Ebonyi State that dates back to 1920s.

 

Land conflict is becoming more of a problem in South-East Nigeria, where land access has historically been described as largely egalitarian (Anyim and Odoemelam, 2017). Many families across South-East Nigeria have seen their homes and farmlands destroyed as a result of land conflict or poor management of such disputes. A number of studies have  evaluated  land reform, land ownership, investment, productivity, climate change and food security in Nigeria (Akinnagbe & Umukoro, 2011; Enete & Amusa, 2011; Mailumo, Adepoju and  Tankari, (2011); Osabuomen & Okoedo-Okojie, 2011; Ahaneku, 2010; Ezeaku & Davidson, 2008; Senjobi, 2007; Osemeobo, 1991). The researchers posit that, there is insufficient focus in both literature and policy on the impacts of land conflict on food crop production in rural communities in South-East Nigeria. Land plays an essential role in the lives and livelihoods of majority of rural dwellers in South-East Nigeria and peace is needed for food production and any meaningful development in rural areas. Thus it is imperative to assess the effect of land conflicts on food production in rural communities in South-East Nigeria.

 

1.3       RESEARCH QUESTIONS

In line with the research problem stated above, the research questions of this study are:

1.              What are the socio-economic characteristics of respondents?

2.              What is the prevalent land tenure system in the areas?

3.              What are the types of land tenure conflicts that exist in the area?

4.              What are the perceived factors causing land conflicts in the area?

5.              What are the conflict resolution mechanisms in use?

6.              What are the perceived most effective conflict resolution mechanisms?

7.              What are the perceived effects of land conflict on food crop production?

8.              What are the economic effects of land conflict in the study area?

 

1.4       OBJECTIVES OF STUDY

The broad objective of this study is to assess the effect of land conflicts on food production in rural communities in South-East Nigeria.

Specific Objectives

The specific objectives for this study will be to:

      I.         describe the socio-economic characteristics of respondents;

    II.         identify land tenure systems;

  III.         identify the prevalent  land conflict that exists;

  IV.         ascertain the perceived factors causing  land conflicts;

    V.         identify  the conflict resolution mechanisms and the perceived most effective conflict resolution mechanisms

  VI.         ascertain the perceived effects of land conflict on food crop production and economic effects of land conflict in the study area.

 

1.5       HYPOTHESES OF STUDY

To achieve some of the objectives of this research, the following null hypotheses will be tested.

HO1:   Socio-economic characteristics of respondents have no significant effect on their perception of the most effective conflict resolution mechanisms.

HO2:   There is no significant difference on the perceived effect of land conflict on food crop production by respondents in the three selected States.

HO3:   There is no significant difference in the choice of conflict resolution mechanisms by respondents in the three selected States.

HO4:   Respondents in the three selected States do not differ in their perception of causes of land conflict in the study area.

 

1.6       SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

The study will help in deepening understanding on types of land conflict that exists and resolution mechanisms in South-East Nigeria. Furthermore, it will help in highlighting the factors causing land conflicts and the effects of land conflict on food crop production in rural communities. The results from this study will also provide robust input in the academic discourse on land conflict and its effects on food production in rural communities. The finding from this research will also provide policy makers, farmers, researchers and rural dwellers with sufficient information on how to articulate sound and appropriate instruments for lasting solutions to recurrent land conflicts and food insecurity in rural communities in the study area. Furthermore, the results would be relevant to other parts of Nigeria where related issues exist. Furthermore, the findings will serve as a contribution to the current body of literature as well as a source of further knowledge.


1.8       SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The focus of the study is on the effect of land conflict on food crop production in rural communities in South-East Nigeria. This study covered selected communities in three States in South-East, Nigeria, namely, Imo, Anambra and Ebonyi States. The study was primarily focused on effect of land conflict on food crop production in rural communities in the study area.Yam and Cassava were specifically selected as the focal food crops because they are the staple foods in the study area.  The respondents in this study were all heads of households in selected rural communities. This research did not cover other areas of land tenure research due to time constraint and paucity of fund.

 

1.9       DEFINITION OF TERMS

For the purpose of this study, certain key terms used are operationally defined as follows:

a.     Alienation right applies to the right to transfer property to another by inheritance, rent, or outright selling.

b.     Access rights include the ease of obtaining land for livelihood-related ventures and shelter by people, families, and neighborhoods. It may also refer to the right to be on a certain piece of property.

c.     Control rights refer to the ability to make choices on how the land can be used. That is the freedom to choose the kind of crops to grow on the land and how to benefit financially from the crops sale.

  1. Conflict is a struggle over values or claims to status, power and scarce resources in which the aims of the conflicting parties are not only to gain the desired values but also to neutralize, injure or eliminate rivals (Coser, 1968).
  2. Conflict Resolution is the informal or structured mechanism used by two or more parties to reach a peaceful resolution of a disagreement.
  3. Exclusion Right is the right to stop other people from accessing a certain piece of land.
  4. Food Security refers to the availability of food as well as one's ability to obtain it. A household is considered food secured if none of its members are hungry or in danger of going hungry.
  5. Land in its broadest sense, land encompasses "the earth's crust, the materials under it, and all objects fixed to it."

i.      Land grabbing can be said to have occurred when external actors rob local populations and people of rights to their property, putting their livelihoods at risk.

j.      Land reforms are policies or legislation aimed at mitigating historical inequalities of land ownership, access and use.

k.     User rights include the rights to use the land for growing subsistence crops, grazing, and gathering minor forestry products, among others. The most of the time, land use rights are available to the community's poor.

l.      Land tenure defines who can hold and use land and its associated resources, for what length of time, and under what conditions. It encompasses the set of rules created by societies to govern land access, usage, control, and transfer, as well as the obligations and restrictions that come with it.

m.   Land tenure security refers to as the degree of conviction in not being unfairly dispossessed of land rights or the economic benefits that come with them.

n.     Management right is referred to as the right to alter the land in several ways, such as clearing the bushes, farming and making improvements on the land.

o.     Small holder farmers are those who own small plots of land and grow subsistence crops as well as one or two cash crops, relying almost entirely on family labor.

p.     Transfer rights on its own refer to the right to sell or loan out the land, to change the use and control rights, to pass on the land to others and to hand on the land through inheritance to heirs.

q.     Usufructuary rights are rights given to a person or party that give the temporary right to use and benefit from someone else's property. Usufruct is usually conferred for a limited time period.

r.     Withdrawal right is the right to obtain something from the land, such as water, firewood, or even farm produce. The access and withdrawal rights are referred to as use rights, while management, exclusion, and alienation rights are grouped under control or decision making rights.



Click “DOWNLOAD NOW” below to get the complete Projects

FOR QUICK HELP CHAT WITH US NOW!

+(234) 0814 780 1594

Buyers has the right to create dispute within seven (7) days of purchase for 100% refund request when you experience issue with the file received. 

Dispute can only be created when you receive a corrupt file, a wrong file or irregularities in the table of contents and content of the file you received. 

ProjectShelve.com shall either provide the appropriate file within 48hrs or send refund excluding your bank transaction charges. Term and Conditions are applied.

Buyers are expected to confirm that the material you are paying for is available on our website ProjectShelve.com and you have selected the right material, you have also gone through the preliminary pages and it interests you before payment. DO NOT MAKE BANK PAYMENT IF YOUR TOPIC IS NOT ON THE WEBSITE.

In case of payment for a material not available on ProjectShelve.com, the management of ProjectShelve.com has the right to keep your money until you send a topic that is available on our website within 48 hours.

You cannot change topic after receiving material of the topic you ordered and paid for.

Ratings & Reviews

0.0

No Review Found.

Review


To Comment