CHANGE IN NOMENCLATURE, SAME AMBIGUOUS POLICY

By

Gurumwal George Longjan

The widely rejected proposed National Grazing Ranch/Reserve/Colony Policy has just had a name change to:

“The National Livestock Transformation Plan”.

Glancing through the “Transformation Plan”, these are the ten pilot states to “benefit” from the policy:

Adamawa, Benue, Ebonyi, Edo, Kaduna, Nassarawa, Oyo, Plateau, Taraba and Zamfara.

94 locations in these states have been “donated” and have subsequently been earmarked for the Ranches/Reserves/Colonies.

Who did the donating?
Were the indigenous people consulted?
Where are the 94 donated lands located?

These basic queries have not been answered since the initial Grazing debate started, up till now that this new “Transformation Plan” is being peddled.

Page 23 of the Transformation Plan partly answered the first of the three questions. It was stated that “Governors and Private Entities” have donated lands for the “Pilot Ranches”. But To the best of my knowledge, there is no vacant land in these states, all lands have owners. So did these owners, from the goodness of their hearts, give their scarce land resources to the State Government for utilisation for the The Plan?

If it was the various State Government’s lands, did the various Houses of Assembly approve such a ceding of State Land to the Federal Government, even if it’s temporary?

Confusingly, it states on Page 27 that:

“Pastoralists to be registered and recognised as cooperatives for the ranching scheme”

and then in the very next paragraph:

“State Governments to grant lands to (these) cooperatives on a leasehold basis”

The mere fact that this paragraph categorically states that Pastoralists will be the ones to form the cooperatives and those cooperatives will be “given the lands” calls for deep concern.

Now we don’t even know who has rights to the lands to do as they please during the implementation of The Plan. Is it the Federal Government? The State Government? The original owners of the land? The Pastoralists?

Furthermore it states that there shall be clusters of these “ranches” within the “donated gazetted grazing reserves”. From my limited knowledge, this group of “clusters” more or less describes a “Grazing Colony”.

The fact that they are being “gazetted” means that the Federal Government will most likely have the rights to the lands, and do whatever they please with it, even if it runs contrary to the interests of the indigenous neighbours. We have not finished recovering from the “Grazing Routes” that were established by Government and “gazetted” decades ago.

Page 12 and 13 of The Transformation Plan says it is to be built on six key pillars. Of interest is the fourth pillar, the “Humanitarian Relief Pillar” which includes “rebuilding and reconstructing of WORSHIP PLACES”.

I’m wondering what an economic/transformation plan or an agricultural project has to do with “worship places”. I guess the interpretation of “worship places” and which religion(s) would benefit is anyone’s guess.

Also of interest is that over 10 years, the Project will gulp more than N179 billion while the first 3 years of the pilot phase will consume N70 billion.

For the Federal Government to be eager and willing to invest so much money in a controversially unpopular project that has been roundly rejected, that has changed names multiple times and involves an activity that is not generally practised by the indigenous people of the selected states, calls for deep thought.

It is concerning that a farming activity like grazing cattle, that involves a significantly lower percentage of the population in the aforementioned area, will consume almost the whole totality of the monumental funds that have been earmarked for future farming related activities and projects in the target areas.

Farming of Potatoes, Yams, Cassava, Millet, Rice, Carrots, Cabbages, Beans, Mai Atili (Olives), Ridi (Beniseed), Cashew, Oranges, Mangoes etc is the predominant agricultural activity in these regions.

This is where I would have thought the Federal Government would invest N179 billion. Long term investments to build processing plants, develop supply chain routes, upgrade the local airports to international Cargo Terminals and provide other technological amenities to improve crop production to meet the local demand and eventual export to countries that are begging for these agricultural resources.

All I would say is that let every one keep their eyes wide open. With current happenings, we definitely can not afford to be complacent.

Beneath every questionable and ambiguous policy, there is an underlying agenda. And in more cases than none, the agenda is nefarious.

count | 178

Mr. George Longjan Raises Concern on FG Ranching Policy, Says It is Ambiguous & Nefarious