CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1      BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

Ranching is a very significant change of the pastoralist system strategy. It changes the mobility nature of pastoralism where traditionally there are no limits of grazing of the available pastures, into controlled grazing (Abbass, 2012). It also changes the common property character of the pastoralist land where all land is open for pastures without any individual ownership. Ranching is now the dominant system of ruminant livestock production in North America, Australia and parts of South America (Adekunle  & Adisa, 2010). This is because the advantages of cattle ranching and it importance cannot be over emphasize Some European systems could also be described as ranching, though enclosures are often small and animals are frequently given supplements in the field (Folami, 2009). In countries like United States, (Fsona & Omojola, 2005), communal grazing pastoralism was prevalent in the 19th century, but now the grazing systems are fully enclosed (Houdret, Kramer & Carius, 2010). From 1990 to 2003, the cattle herd in the Northern part of the country grew by 140% from 26.6 million to 64 million heads. Increasing demand and the sector’s advantages in the region suggest that ranching will continue to grow in the region (Adisa, 2012). Nevertheless, the growth of extensive ranching in the region is worrying especially because of increased deforestation. Scientific and modern economic intervention into pastoralism has generally targeted the mobility and communal grazing characteristics of the system which results into sedentarized and most likely the enclosed, ranching system (Ahima, 2014). This intervention has implication that the pastoralist ecosystem is a limited and valuable resource. The traditional pastoralist perception is contrary to this implication, and considers and wishes to consider that pastoral land is essentially vast wilderness with no instituted limitation of use (no use limits except the availability of pastures). This obviously contradicts most intervention outlook. Even with most prominent advocates for promotion and improvement of pastoralist resource exploitation strategy, the baseline seems somewhere to be based on sedentarization or predictable location prior to other proposed measures like nutritional and veterinary assistance for livestock, services such as education (schools) and health; and setting up emergency grazing areas (Aji, 2014). There has been extensive scholarly analysis of the livelihood and sustainability of pastoralism as a way of life of a significant proportion of the human population. Much criticism exists arguing that mobility of large herds of livestock is stressful to the environment as it would cause extensive removal of vegetation (Barnett, 2008). Repeated uncontrolled grazing often ends up into bare land where vegetation is completely removed. Due to livestock trampling topsoil of an area usually becomes much pulverized while the immediate subsoil beneath becomes severely compacted. Pulverized soil is prone to extensive loss of soil through wind erosion while when it rains sheet erosion sweeps away very easily most of the pulverized soil. The surface run-off becomes much enhanced by the compacted soil condition (Biermann, & Klaus, 2004) Therefore, while rainfall would be stimulant for vegetation re-growth, because of extensive vegetation removal and compaction the rainfall instead becomes an enhancer of bareness of the soil after washing away all the soil that would support vegetation re-growth. In the Sahel in Africa, it has been reported that vegetation removal by livestock in the area is believed to have increased soil surface albedo to the extent of causing reduction of rainfall and rapid desertification (Blench, 2010). The worst thing about the unlimited mobility is that it can extend its impact beyond limits. Another criticism on pastoralism is centered on the system’s tendency against limited use rights of pastureland In this context all pastureland is communal and open to limitless grazing. Since communal use of pasturelands prevents any sense of ownership of the land, no individual pastoralist can think of expansion of his activities within the locality in which he is existing at any particular time (Durojaiye, 2014). At the same time the pastoralist cannot intuit any idea of intensification because under communal ownership there is no ground on which this intensification can be exercised. Under the communal setup, for example, a pastoralist cannot think of possibility of substituting some of the livestock for more pasture land. This is the dilemma of the communal land tenure system of traditional pastoralism. In his much referred “Tragedy of the commons”, criticizes very categorically the communal grazing characteristic of pastoralism and insists privatization as a way to correct imbalances of the pastoralist practice. In his article he described how common property resources shared by pastoralists eventually become over-used and ruined. He argued that the pastoralist land use strategy is unstable and a cause of environmental degradation (Ebonugwo, 2016). Earlier more than a century ago, also criticized pastoralism and argued observing that as far as common grazing land is concerned there is everything against it. He asserted that where there is communal grazing, every peasant in the village would tend to maximize the opportunity within the same limited area, with the result that grazing lands become always overstocked, never given rest, and usually become little more than exercise grounds for cattle (Flavel, 2010). Facts about this are difficult to totally refute even though some more recent literature elaborate contrary opinion and argue for a more interdisciplinary apprehension.