https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6011-2392
Figures
Abstract
In Plateau State, pastoralism has historically been a cost effective and resilient economic system well-suited to the ecological context. However, changes in land use and conflict have increasingly changed patterns of mobility. Pastoralist movement is now often associated with zoonotic disease transmission, environmental degradation and conflict, increasingly resulting in forced sedentarisation. Rather than a direct outcome of population movement however, animal, human and zoonotic disease drivers are complex and influenced by a range of socio-economic and environmental factors. The interlinkages of (im)mobility and health requires better understanding of underlying vulnerabilities to disease, which we aim to address in this study. Using a multisite case study methodology we investigated pastoralists’ animal and human health concerns and priorities in Plateau State, Nigeria. We deployed participatory tools, including open-ended Focus Group Discussions, transect walks, mapping exercises, calendars and matrices. Data were analysed using a One Health conceptual framework. We interviewed 105 participants, from transhumance, migratory and sedentary households, dependent on livestock and small-scale crops. While transhumance was often preferred, participants had become sedentary as a result of insecurity, loss in livestock, and household characteristics. Humans and animals suffered from several endemic diseases, including zoonoses, however veterinary and human health services are only available in larger towns, and people mostly rely on community (animal) health workers and self-medication. Both transhumance and sedentary livestock keepers face challenges around forage grazing, regularly blocked by landowners, sometimes escalating into conflict. While conflict and changes in land use affected animal and human disease patterns, underlying political, social and economic risk factors were important determinants of health. There is a need for more inclusive, transdisciplinary, multilevel approaches to address animal and human disease, based on better contextualization of the challenges, through the participation of affected communities.
Citation: Braam DH, Bolajoko M-B, Hammer CC (2024) A One Health approach to pastoral (im)mobility, health, and disease: A qualitative participatory study in Plateau State, Nigeria. PLOS Glob Public Health 4(10): e0003637. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0003637
Editor: Thomas P. Van Boeckel, ETH Zürich: Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule Zurich, SWITZERLAND
Received: March 26, 2024; Accepted: September 5, 2024; Published: October 31, 2024
Copyright: © 2024 Braam et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article.
Funding: The fieldwork for this study was funded by a Cambridge-Africa ALBORADA Research Fund Award. At the time of the study, DHB was supported by the Gates Cambridge Trust (OPP1144). The Trust did not have a role in the design of the study, collection, analysis or interpretation of data.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Pastoralist movement is often associated with zoonotic disease transmission, environmental degradation and conflict. Rather than a direct outcome of population movement however, animal, human and zoonotic disease drivers are complex and influenced by a range of socio-economic and environmental factors. The interlinkages of (im)mobility and health requires better understanding of underlying vulnerabilities to disease, which we aim to address in this study.
Nigeria is Africa’s most populous country, with a population of 229 million people [1]. Agriculture contributes about 21.2 percent to Gross Domestic Product (GDP), with livestock contributing 9 percent [2], and 36.5 percent to employment [3]. The national livestock herd is estimated at 18.4 million cattle, 43.4 million sheep, 76 million goats and 180 million poultry [4]. Pastoralism, a subsistence strategy based on the herding of animals, practiced by the majority of ruminant farmers [2] accounts for 82 percent of cattle. Herd sizes are extremely variable, with most herds in the ranges of 10 to 20 cattle and 50 to 100 cattle [5]. This transhumant production system is based on the seasonal and cyclical migration of livestock, with non-herding members of the community engaging in crop production [6]. There is a lack of data on pastoralism in sub-humid zones [5], as well as the interlinkages of migration and zoonotic disease dynamics. While rabies, avian influenza, Ebola Virus Disease (EVD), swine influenza and anthrax are considered zoonoses of most concern [3], there is little data available on the actual zoonotic disease burden in the region.
Pastoralists are often held responsible for overgrazing and disease spread [7], even though pastoralism may actually contribute to healthier environments, as continuous movement enables the recovery of natural resources [8]. The association with disease transmission, environmental degradation and conflict, increasingly results in forced sedentarisation of pastoral communities [9]. However, this may increase disease burden, as seasonal vectors such as mosquitoes and tsetse flies can no longer be avoided [10]. Rather than a direct outcome of population movement therefore, zoonotic disease drivers are complex and influenced by a range of socio-economic and environmental factors [10]. The interlinkages of (im)mobility and zoonotic health requires better understanding of underlying vulnerabilities to disease, which we aim to address in this study. To analyse and interpret the study findings, we find that the One Health approach provides a useful conceptual framework, as it acknowledges the interlinkages and interdependencies of animal, environmental, and human health, highlighted by the challenges outlined above.
Materials and methods
We used a participatory multisite case study methodology to investigate pastoralists’ zoonotic health concerns and priorities in Plateau State, Nigeria. Fieldwork was conducted in five communities during February 2022. We employed participatory methods to enhance participants’ control, implemented by local researchers from different disciplines, including public health, veterinary medicine and the social sciences, to ensure interdisciplinarity and strengthen research design and analysis. Open-ended Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) to allow for refocusing of the study based on participants’ priorities. Participatory methods included participatory mapping, in which participants identified the primary health care units, schools, police stations, markets, rivers, and grazing areas, among others. Participants also designed seasonal disease calendars, highlighting the seasonal burden of animal and human disease; and guided the researchers on transect walks, during which details such as animal ownership, soil erosion and the availability of water points were identified. Findings were analysed and interpreted using a One Health conceptual framework, which allows for a comprehensive consideration of human, animal and environmental health, taking into account complex historical, political, and socio-economic dynamics.
Study area and participants
Historically, the central plain of Plateau State was largely uninhabited, open savannah woodland, which offered grazing areas and the absence of tsetse and mosquitoes to the hill tribes resettled there by the British colonizers [5]. Fulani established themselves across the Plateau and on the lowland plains, for its fertile environment and relatively low levels of disease, adopting a largely agro-pastoralist lifestyle around one hundred years ago [11]. Fulani are the primary pastoral population in Nigeria, a diverse group numbering around 15.3 million people. In addition to livestock keeping, most Fulani grow crops such as maize, vegetables and millet on small pieces of land up to 10 acres, a way to spread risk in response to increased competition over natural resources [5, 12]. The Fulani are still considered as ‘settlers’, while the ‘indigenes’ Christian tribes retain an advantage in terms of social, political and economic benefits [5]. This has caused tensions which spilled over into violent conflict in 2001 and have flared up regularly since. In rural areas, conflicts focus primarily on livestock grazing and crop encroachment.
The Fulani communities interviewed for this study include transhumance, migratory and sedentary households. Community leaders and 10–12 households were selected using a purposive sampling method based on their mobility status (transhumance versus sedentary) and livelihood (livestock keeping versus agriculture), to partake in Focus Group Discussions (FGDs).
Data collection and analysis
Fieldwork was conducted in Fulfulde language by six researchers from the Hausa (5) and Fulani (1) ethnic groups, which included experienced veterinary staff, community animal health workers (CAHW) and an existing network of pastoralist community leaders. The semi-structured FGDs included questions on demographic and socio-economic community and household characteristics, individual and community mobility and migration experiences, human and animal health, and health-seeking practices. The interview guides are available as S1 File to this manuscript. Interviews were recorded with the participants’ consent, and transcripts and fieldwork notes translated into English by the local researchers, and the translation verified by MB, before analysis. Quotes and findings presented in the Results section were anonymised through assigning interview codes which represent the gender of those interviewed during the FGD (W for women, M for men), and the geographical location where the FGD was held (e.g. M for Maigemu and S for Shandam), as well as the sequence in which FGDs were held in the specific location, resulting in codes such as WM1 (the first FGD of Women interviewed in Maigemu). Observations within and around the household and community were recorded using field notes and photos and analysed to contextualize and triangulate interview responses. Interview and secondary data was coded manually in English, synthesized into matrices, and themes constructed using an inductive thematical analysis approach [13]. Study findings were interpreted using concepts from the One Health framework approach (human health, animal health, and environmental health, the latter including ‘land’, ‘water’, and ‘facilities’) to analyse the interlinkages of the three spheres of the One Health approach of human, animal and environmental health and triangulated with other primary and secondary data to position the findings within current trends and developments in Plateau State and Nigeria.
Ethics
The study protocol was approved by the Animal Research Ethics Committee of the National Veterinary Research Insitute, Vom, Nigeria (AEC/03/110/22) and the Human Biology Research Ethics Committee of the University of Cambridge (HBREC.2021.36). Participants were informed about the study during face-to-face recruitment and informed about the voluntary bases of participation and their right to withdraw prior or during data collection. All participants gave verbal consent for data collection and recording of interviews. Participants’ anonymity was ensured by full anonymization in the analysis and discussion to remove any personal identifiable information. To minimize the risk of exploitation and damaging research practices among vulnerable and marginalized community participants, we used semi-structured rather than closed questionnaires allowing participants to refocus discussions.
Inclusivity in global research
Additional information regarding the ethical, cultural, and scientific considerations specific to inclusivity in global research is included in the Supporting Information (S1 Checklist).
Results
Communities and their environment
We interviewed 105 participants, 53 women and 52 men, of whom 29 practices transhumance while 23 remained sedentary. All participant households owned mixed herds primarily for subsistence, and supported their livelihoods through crop farming, and labour migration, while in one community (MA4) some participants earned a livelihood by providing transportation. Besides keeping ruminants and poultry for milk, manure and meat, all participants planted crops for food and income. Most crop produce was destined for home consumption, while leftovers were used for animal feed or sold for extra income or school fees (WM1). One of the participants’ primary concerns was the reduction in access to land for subsistence crop farming and grazing (WM1; WK3). While livestock could feed on crop leftovers during dry season (MK3), in rainy season grazing areas were blocked by farmers cultivating their land (MK3; ML5). Elsewhere, government farming occupied former pasture (ML5). Another concern was the limited water supply, in particular during the dry season. Water was obtained from different sources: central boreholes (MM1; WS2), private wells (MM1), constructed or natural dams (WM1; WS2), and/ or water trucking (WA4). None of these sources guaranteed sufficient water supply, however. Over the years, dry season farming has taken over communal water sources (MM1). Some participants had made (paid) arrangements with farmers (MM1), whereby their animals were allowed to drink water from irrigation canals or streams on farmland (WM1; ML5) (Figs 1–4).
Other communities had invested in generators, pumping machines and water basins, however strained resources limited the water supply to specific hours, with people and herds taking turns (WM1). Elsewhere, the closest water source was as far away as two hours travel (WK3). During rainy season in June and July (WM1) rivers filled gullies with water for the animals, posing an erosion risk (MS2). Observations from the transect walks confirmed that erosion was present in four out of five communities, causing occasional rockfall during rainy season (WA4). Other environmental degradation was caused by deforestation (MA4), with 64 percent of the land at risk [4].
Even though the sale of animals was an important part of many of the participants’ livelihoods, there were few animal markets in the region, with participants travelling up to two hours (WA4) (Fig 5). Travelling to and from the markets was not without its risks from thieves and other insecurity issues (MM1). Pretend ‘security agents’ at illegal checkpoints sometimes required bribes (MM1), while property theft included stealing motorcycles and small animals (MA4; ML5). More significant theft occurred at night when men returned from the markets with their profits (WA4; ML5). Road accidents were common, particularly during rainy season (MK3; ML5). Only in one community none of the participants had faced security challenges on their way to the market (WL5).
(Im)mobility
Communities consisted of a combination of transhumant and settled/ sedentary households. Transhumance—moving livestock between grazing grounds in a seasonal cycle–was conducted by men and considered necessary to find good quality pastures for the animals (MM1; MS2), and/ or water sources (MK3). Some herd owners hired boys from Langtang North and South to help with grazing, paid in-kind after the season (WS2; WA4). Transhumance had become increasingly challenging however, with grazing routes and seasons changing as a result of insecurity related to conflict and crime (WM1). While generally migration for grazing occurred during the dry season, starting in December/ January and returning between April—June, with varied timing depending on the origin and destination locations, one key informant mentioned that cattle left for grazing in November and returned in August (WM1). Some participants had experienced cattle rustling (MS2; MA4), while others lost sheep and goats to theft (MK3), with one community losing some just the day before the interview (WK3). Sometimes children and livestock were attacked during grazing (WS2). During the worst farmer—herder clashes, some children were even killed (WM1), although some participants noted that in some communities, relationships improved in the past few years (MM1; WS4).
Cattle migration routes were increasingly encroached by crop farmers (WS2) or urbanization (ML5; MA4). Crop farming encroachment was a particular risk during the rainy season, when farmers planted their crops near or on the migratory routes (WL5), and respondents were careful not to enter farmlands to prevent conflict (MK3). Some had decided to graze their animals along the sides of the road to avoid clashes (WL5), while moving at night to minimize the risk of road traffic accidents (MM1). Fishing and irrigation farming had taken over migratory watering points (ML5).
As a result of the challenges encountered during migration, including conflicts (MM1), lacking safe cattle migration routes (WM1) and blockades, some participants had stopped transhumance altogether. Sedentary participants generally owned fewer animals (MS2; MA4) and faced challenges in feeding these (WS2; WK3). One participant explained how ‘during rainy season there is abundant water, but nowhere to forage, while during the dry season there is no water, but abundant feed’ (WA4). Some participants mentioned that for sedentary households, animal rearing is easier in the dry season (WK3), when farmers may allow livestock to feed on crop harvest leftovers (ML5) in return for manure (WS2), or for a payment of up to thirty thousand naira (US$40.4)] (WA4). However, the majority of farmers prevented animal grazing by burning the stalks on their fields immediately after harvesting.
Health and disease
Most participants considered transhumance healthier for the animals (MM1; MA4), however others noted that even during migration there was not always sufficient water, and diseases in grazing areas affected humans and animals (WM1). Sick animals were kept at home, rather than continuing migration (WK3). Participants were familiar with a range of animal diseases, often known by their local names and/ or symptoms, with the most common diseases named: huhu (contagious bovine pleuropneumonia (CBPP), hanta (fasciolosis), boru (Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD), saifa (Anthrax), and samore (trypanosomiasis) in cattle; mura (Peste des Petits Ruminants (PPR), dingishi (foot rot), ecto- and endoparasites in sheep and goats; and Newcastle Disease (NCD) in poultry, reflecting findings from the literature (Ndahi et al, 2012). Table 1 gives an overview of the occurance of reporting of the most reported diseases across the fieldwork communities. Besides disease, animals and humans were also at risk of wild animals, including dilah (fox, Vulpes vulpes), and tunku (wildcat, Felis silvestris) (MS2) and hyenas (MK3), while scorpion- and snake bites occured mainly during the rainy season (WL5)/ March to June (WK3). In response to wild animals and other threats, all participants kept dogs to guard their property, visible during the transect walks. Most participants were familiar with the risk of haukan kere (rabies) from dogs (MA4; ML5), however not all dogs were vaccinated, instead they were euthanized when sick (WK3; WL5). Inside the house, participants kept cats to control rodents (MM1). Cats were generally allowed to sleep on the bed (WM1) and were considered healthy: ‘cats don’t fall sick’ (WM1; WS2), although in one community people understood from the veterinarian that cats may transmit respiratory diseases (WA4; MA4).
If ruminants fell ill, traditional treatments were used, while some participants called a veterinary officer, although qualified staff and equipment were not always available (MM1). CAHW sometimes visited the villages to treat and vaccinate animals on demand (MS2; WK3; MK3), while veterinary advice was also obtained at veterinary clinics and dispensaries in larger towns and cities (MA4), up to 3.5 hours away (WA4). Drugs were often self-administered (MK3; ML5), and the use of long-acting antibiotics was common (MK3). In the past, quacks treated some animals with fake drugs, ‘costing their husbands over 300 thousand naira’ (US$404) (WS2).
Discussion
Structural inequalities
We found that for many livestock keepers, transhumance mobility decisions depended on people’s cattle herd size, considerations around personal safety and security, household circumstances and past experiences. Conflict and related insecurity as a result of violence influence migration patterns [7], however rather than a driver of displacement, we find that insecurity out of fear of violence is actually one of the reasons to become sedentary. The loss of livestock and the resulting need for income diversification are important household determinants of migration dynamics [7]. Those pastoralists fearing the loss of their livelihoods consider sedentarisation or migration, with direct implications to public health and security, related to the competition for land and natural resources between farmers and pastoralists [7]. Sedentarisation also increases risks of erosion, through the constant use of water points and gullies, and overgrazing, as well as infectious disease amid increased population densities, as we witnessed during the transect walks. As a result of climate change and environmental degradation, migration is likely to further increase [14], as the pastoralist livelihood is challenged [15].
Attitudes to pastoralism in Nigeria are mixed. To those in favour, transhumant pastoralism is seen as a highly productive and resilient economic system, and an effective and appropriate way to use grazing resources [16], well adapted to the ecological context of West Africa [6]. By opponents of transhumance, pastoral livestock production is considered increasingly unsustainable as a primary source of livelihood due to the changing socio-economic context, climatic conditions, and rapid population growth [7]. In response to the growing population and limitations to available land, the government introduced a 10-year National Livestock Transformation Plan (NLTP) in 2019, introducing livestock identification, hygiene and welfare compliant slaughter measures, linking initiatives for rehabilitation of existing grazing reserves, pasture management and dairy collection centres, with the ultimate aim to limit pastoral mobility [2]. This renewed proposal for ranching to stop pastoralist transhumance and increase intensification, ignores the political and economic factors which caused previous attempts at implementing grazing reserve systems to fail [17], creating distrust and increased opposition from pastoralists [18].
Pathways to disease
Our results indicate that increased sedentarisation and marginalisation of pastoralists affect participants’ livelihoods, but also ‘One Health’, by impacting animal, human and environmental health and disease dynamics. While most transhumance participants migrate for forage, others migrate for (animal) health purposes, although some reported that animal health and production levels are not necessarily better in those who move. Where grazing is optimal, nutrition may improve animals’ health status, however incursion into new environments and population density leads to increased vector contact and disease transmission [2]. Meanwhile, when moving to urban centres, pastoralists will lose livestock and nutrition, reducing their exposure to zoonoses, as they no longer live with their animals. These complex dynamics are reflected in the literature, highlighting a gap in knowledge as to how (changes in) mobility affect animal and human health [19].
Both transhumance and sedentary livestock keepers participants reported grazing challenges, which is regularly blocked by landowners’ farming practices. This may create pathways to disease, for instance, moving away from the tsetse flies during the rainy season might no longer be possible [9, 16]. A number of diseases are endemic and present year-round or seasonal in both humans and animals. Participants were aware of a range of infectious and zoonotic disease risks, including drinking from standing water and dog bites. Responses to disease vary however, based on the availability of veterinary and health services. These are often only available in larger towns, and participants mostly rely on CAHWs and self-medication. Migration changes the distance to markets and services, already suboptimal in origin villages. A 2005 survey of nomadic Fulani found that 99 percent of children had not received routine childhood immunisations due to their mobility and remote locations [20].
Faced with the high burden of infectious diseases, including zoonoses in pastoral areas, in December 2019 the government launched a national One Health strategic plan to integrate human, animal and environmental health management. A high-level disease prioritization workshop defined rabies, avian influenza, EVD, swine influenza and anthrax as national priority zoonoses, primarily focusing on diseases impacting a country’s trade and economy, rather than the concerns of smallholders and poor rural livestock keepers [3]. Our participants considered neglected endemic diseases as most impactful instead, highlighting the importance for inclusion of all stakeholders, including communities, in these exercises.
Safety first
In our study, structural inequalities leading to zoonotic disease vulnerabilities seemed primarily related to security challenges. Drivers of migration may cause violent conflict, in turn causing further displacement and insecurity, negatively affecting ecosystems and nutrition, and through this human and animal immune status. Conflict and related insecurity in Nigeria have caused one of the world’s most complex displacement crises, with over 2.7 million people living displaced due to overlapping conflict, disasters, and violence linked to crime [21]. It is essential to acknowledge and better understand the security challenges when addressing zoonotic disease risks in this context. Although the root causes of the violence and insecurity are complex, demanding their own field of study, we highlight some of the grievances of the participants in the below section to support local, contextualised solutions.
Conflicts between pastoralists and farmers are attributed to increased competition over rural resources and land, mixed with local politics along ethno-religious affiliations [2]. Competition has led to the destruction of crops, encroachment of grazing routes and livestock theft, which has increased distrust between crop farmers and pastoralists [7]. While the expansion of farming ranges hampers access to transhumance routes, which are essential to pastoralists for seasonal grazing, they often get blamed for the destruction of agriculture and crops [15, 17, 22]. Climate change further exacerbates the risk of farmer–herder conflicts, in areas where governance systems create inequalities [15], or where state authority is absent [22, 23].
Government bans on open grazing negatively affects pastoralist communities by restricting movement. The symbiotic tradition whereby livestock benefited from crop residues in return for manure has collapsed over time, and the fragmentation of land and changes in property rights have further strained relationships between farmers and pastoralists [7]. Participant interviews identified varied levels of resentment ’land owners may replant some other forms of crop in the same farmland [as we plant our crops] rendering [our] own crop useless’ (WS2). While many farmers therefore no longer require the traditional services of the Fulani pastoralists, the latter are still dependent on farmers for access to natural resources [16]. Our study shows that relations between pastoralists and land-owning farmers are complex, implying that some decisions may be personal rather than practical, which can be explored in finding solutions.
Conclusion
We found that mobility may mitigate or exacerbate zoonotic disease risk, with the latter in turn leading to forced migration. Security issues such as conflict, rustling and crimes need to be addressed simultaneously with mitigating structural inequalities to reduce disease transmission risk. This includes increasing pastoral social and economic capital to reduce inequality and competition, better access to grazing routes and boreholes, securing land tenure arrangements to reduce the pressure on rangeland resources and minimize conflict, and enhance (veterinary) public health to reduce zoonotic disease risks for the communities and wider population. Importantly, framing of zoonotic disease risk should not blame any specific population group or individuals, to allow for a more inclusive approach to mobility and health.
Supporting information
S1 Checklist. Inclusivity in global research.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0003637.s001
(DOCX)
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank all participants for sharing their time and stories with us, and the local researchers who facilitated the project in particular: Rebecca Weka, Jamo Aliyu Ibrahim, Usman Rayanu Admau, Habibu Haliru, Mayowa Olabode, Falmata Haruna Bwala, and Sunday Kelvin Atam.
References
- 1.
FEWSNET. Revised livelihoods zone map and descriptions for Nigeria. 2018. Available: https://fews.net/sites/default/files/documents/reports/Nigeria_LH_zoning_report_09_2018.pdf
- 2.
Majekodunmi AO. Nigeria’s pastoralists face a triple burden of disease outbreaks, conflict and climate change. In: LSE blog [Internet]. 6 Jul 2022 [cited 26 Jan 2023]. Available: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/africaatlse/2022/07/06/nigerias-pastoralists-face-a-triple-burden-of-disease-outbreaks-conflict-and-climate-change/
- 3. Ihekweazu C, Michael CA, Nguku PM, Waziri NE, Habib AG, Muturi M, et al. Prioritization of zoonotic diseases of public health significance in Nigeria using the one-health approach. One Health. 2021;13: 100257. pmid:34041346
- 4.
FAO. The future of livestock in Nigeria: Opportunities and challenges in the face of uncertainty. Rome; 2019. Available: https://www.fao.org/3/cb1939en/CB1939EN.pdf
- 5. Majekodunmi AO, Fajinmi A, Dongkum C, Shaw APM, Welburn SC. Pastoral livelihoods of the Fulani on the Jos Plateau of Nigeria. Pastoralism. 2014;4: 20.
- 6.
IOM, ECOWAS, ICMPD. Regional Policies and Response to Manage Pastoral Movements within the ECOWAS Region. 2017. Available: https://publications.iom.int/system/files/pdf/iom_ecowas_pastoralism.pdf
- 7. Sani Ibrahim S, Ozdeser H, Cavusoglu B, Abdullahi Shagali A. Rural Migration and Relative Deprivation in Agro-Pastoral Communities Under the Threat of Cattle Rustling in Nigeria. SAGE Open. 2021;11: 215824402098885.
- 8. Manzano P, Burgas D, Cadahía L, Eronen JT, Fernández-Llamazares Á, Bencherif S, et al. Toward a holistic understanding of pastoralism. One Earth. 2021;4: 651–665.
- 9. Okello AL, Majekodunmi AO, Malala A, Welburn SC, Smith J. Identifying motivators for state-pastoralist dialogue: Exploring the relationships between livestock services, self-organisation and conflict in Nigeria’s pastoralist Fulani. Pastoralism. 2014;4: 12.
- 10. Dzingirai V, Bukachi S, Leach M, Mangwanya L, Scoones I, Wilkinson A. Structural drivers of vulnerability to zoonotic disease in Africa. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2017;372: 20160169. pmid:28584177
- 11. Braam DH, Chandio R, Jephcott FL, Tasker A, Wood JLN. Disaster displacement and zoonotic disease dynamics: The impact of structural and chronic drivers in Sindh, Pakistan. Holm R, editor. PLOS Glob Public Health. 2021;1: e0000068. pmid:36962103
- 12. Higazi A. Farmer-pastoralist conflicts on the Jos Plateau, central Nigeria: security responses of local vigilantes and the Nigerian state. Confl Secur Dev. 2016;16: 365–385.
- 13. Majekodunmi AO, Dongkum C, Langs T, Shaw APM, Welburn SC. Shifting livelihood strategies in northern Nigeria—extensified production and livelihood diversification amongst Fulani pastoralists. Pastoralism. 2017;7: 19. pmid:28736609
- 14. Attride-Stirling J. Thematic networks: an analytic tool for qualitative research. Qual Res. 2001;1: 385–405.
- 15. Olaniyan A, Okeke-Uzodike U. Desperate guests, unwilling hosts: climate change-induced migration and farmer-herder conflicts in Southwestern Nigeria. Confl Stud Q. 2015; 23–40.
- 16.
SIPRI. Climate change and violent conflict in West Africa: Assessing the evidence. 2022. Available: https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2022-02/sipriinsight2203_ccr_west_africa_0.pdf
- 17. Ducrotoy MJ, Majekodunmi AO, Shaw APM, Bagulo H, Bertu WJ, Gusi AM, et al. Patterns of passage into protected areas: Drivers and outcomes of Fulani immigration, settlement and integration into the Kachia Grazing Reserve, northwest Nigeria. Pastoralism. 2018;8: 1. pmid:31998471
- 18.
UNOWAS. Pastoralism and Security in West Africa and the Sahel: Towards Peaceful Coexistence. 2018. Available: https://unowas.unmissions.org/pastoralism-and-security-west-africa-and-sahel
- 19.
ICC. Ending Nigeria’s Herder-Farmer Crisis: The Livestock Reform Plan. 2021. Available: https://icg-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/302-ending-nigerias-herder-farmer-crisis%20%281%29.pdf
- 20. Braam DH, Jephcott FL, Wood JLN. Identifying the research gap of zoonotic disease in displacement: a systematic review. Glob Health Res Policy. 2021;6: 25. pmid:34271977
- 21. Wild H, Mendonsa E, Trautwein M, Edwards J, Jowell A, GebreGiorgis Kidanu A, et al. Health interventions among mobile pastoralists: a systematic review to guide health service design. Trop Med Int Health. 2020;25: 1332–1352. pmid:32881232
- 22.
IDMC. Impacts of displacement: Displaced by violence, Jos, Nigeria. 2021. Available: https://www.internal-displacement.org/sites/default/files/publications/documents/%202021.10.21_IDMC_Impacts%20of%20Displacement_Nigeria.pdf
- 23. Lenshie NE, Okengwu K, Ogbonna CN, Ezeibe C. Desertification, migration, and herder-farmer conflicts in Nigeria: rethinking the ungoverned spaces thesis. Small Wars Insur. 2021;32: 1221–1251.