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 mean t-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. KEY WORDS: PERCEIVED EFFICACY, CROP FARMERS, HERDSMEN, CONFLICT

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.

This study investigated the socio‑economic effects of crop and cattle farmers’ natural resource‑based conflicts in Osun State, Nigeria. A total of 228 crop and cattle farmers were sampled in six communities (Ila, Faje, Esa‑Oke, Esa‑Odo, Patara and Adana), using a multistage sampling procedure. The data were analysed using both descriptive and inferential statistics such as Pearson Product Moment Correlation (PPMC), Chi square and independent t‑test (at α 0.05). Majority (73.7%, 100%) of crop and cattle farmers, respectively, were male. Accessibility of natural resources and damage/stealing of crops were identified as major causes of the conflicts. Crime and criminality, and poor training on conflict prevention and resolution were rated as major constraint to conflict resolution. Sustainable land management practices and alternative fodder production for crop and cattle farmers, respectively, were identified as major climate smart training needs to mitigate conflicts. Reduction in quality of social relationships and interruption in education of children for crop farmers; and displacement and reduction in quality of social relationships for cattle farmers were the major social effects suffered. Reduction of agricultural outputs and inability to repay loan were the most common economic effects suffered by the respondents. Causes of conflict, farm/herd size and years of respondents’ experience significantly related with overall socio-economic effects, while constraints to conflict resolution mechanisms (t = −2.672, p = 0.008), methods of conflict resolution (t = −6.649, p = 0.000) and socio-economic effects (t = 3.317, p = 0.008) differed among the respondents. Furthermore, the effect of the conflict was more severe among the crop farmers than among cattle farmers. Based on these new findings it is essential that a coordinated effort between religious institutions, the government, and non-governmental organisations give the ongoing efforts more momentum and include convincing herders to consider other options for producing livestock under ranching system for a more effective and sustainable livelihood practices.