JAMES TITSE
There is nothing inherently wrong with ranching.
Indeed, if properly conceived and implemented, ranching could help modernise Nigeria’s livestock industry, reduce farmer-herder conflicts, improve animal health, increase meat and dairy production and create employment across the agricultural value chain.
However, the debate surrounding the Federal Government’s proposed pilot ranching programme, particularly its inclusion of Benue State, should not be reduced to a simplistic question of whether Benue supports or opposes ranching.
The real issue is how the policy is designed, where the land will come from, who will own and control the facilities, who will benefit, what legal framework will govern them, and whether the proposed ranches are genuinely livestock enterprises or could evolve into permanent settlements.
According to government communications, the initiative is intended to transition livestock production away from extensive movement towards more settled and commercially viable ranching systems.
Reports have also referred to the rehabilitation of grazing reserves and the development of what have been described as “integrated livestock communities” or economic hubs, potentially incorporating housing, healthcare, education, veterinary services, water, electricity and other supporting infrastructure.
This description immediately raises a fundamental question: are we establishing ranches or creating permanent settlements centred around livestock production?
This distinction is not merely semantic, as it carries significant implications for land tenure, population dynamics, security, local governance, political representation and the long-term ownership and use of land.
Defining the ranching model
Perhaps the first question the Federal Government must clearly answer is: what exactly is a ranch?
A ranch is, by definition, a livestock production enterprise, while a settlement is a place of permanent residence with established social, economic and administrative structures.
If a proposed ranch includes residential housing, schools, healthcare facilities, markets, places of worship, roads, water systems and other permanent infrastructure, it becomes necessary to clearly delineate the boundary between an agricultural facility and a permanent human settlement.
This is not an argument against providing essential amenities for workers on ranches but a call for legal and policy clarity.
The framework should explicitly state whether residential facilities are temporary or permanent, who is eligible to reside within them, whether residents may acquire land rights, whether residential plots may be inherited or transferred, and whether population growth within such facilities is intended or restricted.
Without such clarity, a project introduced as a livestock initiative could gradually evolve into something far beyond its original agricultural mandate.
Land remains at the centre of this debate.
Before any pilot ranch is established, Nigerians, particularly citizens of the host states, deserve clear answers to fundamental questions: who owns the land, who provides it, who holds legal title, who is responsible for its allocation, what tenure system applies, how long the land will remain under the programme, whether it can be transferred or reassigned, whether it can be inherited, whether additional land can be requested in the future, and what becomes of it if the project is discontinued or fails.
These questions are especially critical in Benue State, where land administration operates within an established legal framework and existing legislation regulates open grazing and provides for ranching systems.
The Federal Government must therefore clearly explain how its proposed pilot programme aligns with existing state laws and land governance structures.
A national livestock policy must not inadvertently create a parallel or competing land-tenure system within a state.
Another key concern is the role of host communities. Government consultation is necessary and welcome, but consultation must not be reduced to a procedural formality in which communities are merely informed of decisions already taken.
A credible policy must clearly define who must be consulted, which traditional institutions must be involved, which communities hold decision-making authority, how landowners and farmers will be protected, what constitutes valid and informed consent, how disputes will be resolved, and what options exist if a host community rejects a proposed site.
This is particularly important in communities where land is not only an economic resource but also a core element of ancestral identity, cultural heritage and communal survival.
Those who will live with the consequences of the project must have a meaningful role in shaping its design and implementation.
Ownership, benefits, security
Nigeria urgently needs modern livestock production systems, and this point is not in dispute.
Benue State itself has consistently demonstrated openness to structured livestock development, as the state has a long agricultural tradition and already maintains a legal framework that recognises regulated ranching while prohibiting open grazing.
The concern arises when livestock development is linked, directly or indirectly, with population relocation or permanent settlement creation.
A clear and legally enforceable distinction must therefore be maintained between ranching, an agricultural and livestock production enterprise, and settlement, which involves permanent human habitation with broader demographic, political and territorial implications.
If the Federal Government intends to establish livestock enterprises, this should be stated clearly and unambiguously.
If, however, the intention includes the creation of permanent settlements, then Nigerians deserve full disclosure of the constitutional, legal, land-tenure and security implications.
Ambiguity in such a sensitive policy area must be avoided.
Another unresolved issue concerns ownership and benefit distribution.
Will the ranches be owned by the Federal Government, state governments, private investors, cooperatives, livestock associations or a combination of these?
Will indigenous farmers in host communities have equitable access? Will displaced livestock owners be prioritised? Will the facilities be leased, and under what terms? What will be the cost structure and duration of access? Can beneficiaries transfer, sell or inherit their interests?
These are not minor administrative details, as they define the long-term structure and equity of the entire programme.
Where public land and public resources are involved, transparency regarding ownership and benefit distribution is essential.
A national livestock development initiative must not become a mechanism for creating exclusive or privileged access to public assets.
The Federal Government has partly justified ranching as a solution to farmer-herder conflicts, but any ranch located in areas affected by insecurity must be supported by a comprehensive and well-defined security framework.
Key questions include who is responsible for security, which security agencies will have jurisdiction, who controls access to the facilities, what role, if any, private security will play, how arms and weapons will be regulated, what mechanisms will prevent criminal infiltration, and how disputes between ranch occupants and neighbouring communities will be managed.
These concerns are particularly important because concentrating people, livestock, infrastructure and economic activity in a single location can create both opportunities and vulnerabilities.
A policy designed to reduce conflict must not inadvertently generate new security risks.
Protecting land rights, ensuring accountability
The issue of displaced farmers is especially sensitive in Benue State.
In areas where farmers have been displaced due to insecurity, extreme caution must be exercised before allocating land for new projects.
There must be no scenario in which displacement becomes an indirect pathway to land reallocation.
The proper sequence should be: security restoration, return of displaced persons, verification of land ownership, community consultation, lawful and voluntary land agreements, and then ranch development.
It must not become a case of displacement, land becoming available, government project occupying the land, and original owners later discovering that their property has been reassigned.
Any policy that fails to address this risk will inevitably generate mistrust, regardless of its economic intentions.
Benue State already operates under the Open Grazing Prohibition and Ranches Establishment Law, 2017, and this legal framework cannot be ignored.
The state is not opposed to ranching; rather, it has established a structured legal system for regulated livestock production.
The key question, therefore, is not whether Benue can accommodate ranching but whether the Federal Government’s proposed model is consistent with existing state legislation.
If the pilot ranches are compatible with the law, this must be clearly demonstrated. If they require legal adjustments or exceptions, this must be openly discussed before implementation.
No federal agricultural initiative should undermine or bypass valid state laws.
Since the programme is described as a pilot, another important question arises: what happens if it fails? Who will be responsible for abandoned infrastructure?Who will restore the land? Who will absorb financial losses? What becomes of residents and livestock? How will environmental impacts be addressed? What happens if security conditions deteriorate or host communities withdraw their consent?
Without a clearly defined exit strategy, a pilot programme risks becoming permanent by default simply because withdrawal becomes politically or financially difficult.
For this reason, the policy must include clear review timelines, performance benchmarks, termination conditions and land-restoration provisions.
The real issue is not ranching
The debate should therefore move beyond slogans and simplifications. It is not sufficient to state that “Benue rejects ranching” because that is not necessarily the issue.
A more accurate and responsible position is that Benue can support modern livestock production, provided any ranching initiative is guided by transparent land-tenure arrangements, meaningful community participation, clear ownership and benefit structures, robust security guarantees, full compliance with state law, and a clear legal distinction between livestock enterprises and permanent settlements.
Nigeria urgently needs a coherent livestock development policy. The country must invest in agriculture, modernise its livestock sector and embrace structured ranching systems.
However, Nigeria must also learn from the controversies surrounding previous initiatives such as RUGA and cattle colonies.
Good intentions alone are insufficient.
Policy must be grounded in legal clarity, institutional transparency and the protection of host community rights.
The Federal Government should, therefore, publish the full framework of the pilot ranching programme before implementation in any state.
Nigerians deserve to know the proposed locations, land-tenure arrangements, ownership structure, residency framework, beneficiary criteria, security architecture and the relationship between federal policy and state law.
Most importantly, there must be an explicit legal guarantee that a livestock development initiative cannot evolve into a mechanism for permanent settlement, uncontrolled population expansion or the erosion of indigenous land rights.
This controversy can be resolved through transparency.
The solution is not to reject ranching.
The solution is to close the loopholes before the first ranch is established.
Rev. Titse writes from Gboko, Benue State, via revjamestitse@gmail.com