Conflict between pastoralists and farmers over natural resource has existed for centuries, as obtainable in all conflict situations, there is an aggressor and the aggrieved. However, the status of aggressor/aggrieve is transient and interchangeable between the two groups, depending on the situation and the predisposing factor that may cause conflict. The proposition whether or not climate change is a factor to consider in the conflict between the pastoralist and the farmer remains to be investigated through probing of respondents’ understanding of climate scenario within the context of the prevailing conflict situation.
The farmer/pastoralist understanding of the role climate change plays in promoting the conflict between the two groups is critical towards identifying avenues through which the conflict can be at the least minimize if not eliminated. A strategy to be pursued is the incorporation of conflict resolving aspect between the two groups in climate mitigation options. This finding suggests that both farmers and pastoralist understand that climate change plays a role in the scarcity of resources in the study area which leads to conflict between them (Table 1).
If both parties (pastoralists and farmers) perceive the role of climate change in the conflict prevailing in the area, it will be easier to work out climate adaptation and mitigation strategies in the daily operation of their livelihood strategies. Shehu (2018) asserted that climate change is continuously contributing to the shrinkage and diminishing of grazing land.
Self-examination by the farmers also revealed that use of herbicide, non-planting and protection of trees also aggravates the conflict. Others include clean clearing, non-establishment of green reserves along the perimeter of farms (Fig. 4).
Having both parties identifying conflict aggravating situations between them provides a path into understanding the complexity surrounding the hostility between the farmer and pastoralist. Furthermore, with understanding comes the possibility of charting a course for conflict management or coping strategies (in other words prevention or reconciliation and restoration of losses). The findings in this section are corroborated by Popoola et al., (2020) who reported that shorted of pasture lands as well as climate change are among the drivers of the conflict between farmers and pastoralists. Also, Kimani, (2008), asserted that pressure and competition over resources especially during droughts over water and pasture sources degenerate into conflict between pastoralists and farmers (Fig. 4).
A critical analysis of the responses of the two groups would reveal that each suggested or supported an action to be carried out by the other strongly. However, a promising outlook is that, both parties subscribed to personal actions that must be taken by them for the management of the conflict though not strongly but in agreement. It can therefore be asserted that storage of fodder by pastoralists, optimum utilization of pasture, cultivation of pasture and sustainable grazing method when adopted and practiced by pastoralists, will reduce the conflict situation in the study area. Also, when farmers adopt intensive cultivation methods, reduce the use of herbicide (as a means of expansion), establish green reserves between farm boundaries and stop bush burning, conflict tendencies between the two groups will be reduced
The conflict triggers and management/prevention activities that should be adopted and carried out by either of the party as presented in Table 4 is a unifying approach towards climate change mitigation between the two groups. Hence, a collaboration between the farmer and the pastoralist must be achieved for a holistic attainment of an environmentally friendly climate regime. Conflict triggers induced by farmers, include extensive land cultivation practices which encloses the pastoralist within an area and prevents/hinders the movement of cattle to pasture or water point. Also the extensive use of herbicides by farmers empowers them to cultivated large expanse of land which ordinarily is beyond the capability of the farmer. The absence of green reserves between farms also triggers conflict, farmers as a practice do not leave out parcels of land on their boundaries as buffer green areas.
This further makes it difficult for cattle to navigate in between fields or have bush to graze during the dry season. Furthermore, the absence of the green areas also deprive animals of habitat, thereby disrupting the ecosystem. Clean land clearing by farmers also contributes to the conflict, where pastoralist s indicated that the clearing of shrubs and trees from virgin lands by farmers reduces the availability of feed to cattle. Regarding pastoralist activity contributing towards the occurrence of conflict between the two parties, lack of storage of fodder by pastoralists was reported to be a factor. Also, fodder waste due to non-efficient utilization fodder by pastoralists was also reported as trigger. Other actions reported were tree cutting/felling, over grazing and non-cultivation of fodder by pastoralists. As in every situation of conflict, there are prevention (management) or remedial (coping) measures that can be implemented to keep the peace. The management measures agreed to by the parties involved include intensive land cultivation, reduction of the use of herbicide by the farmers; as well as the establishment of green reserves and reduction of land clearing intensity. On the side of the pastoralists, storage and efficient utilization of fodder as well as the planting and protection of trees were among the actions required. Also, sustainable grazing methods and the planting of pasture were indicated as steps pastoralists need to take to avert conflict between the two parties.