ABSTRACT
The study explored the idea of the farmers herders conflict in Nigeria and analyzed the central point liable for the conflict in Nigeria. Likewise, it examined the role of government in addressing to the conflict and identified gaps in government reactions to the farmer herders crises. These were with the end goal of figuring out the justifications for why conflict management strategies employed by the government in response to the farmers-herdsmen crisis have not resulted in the end of the crisis.
The study made use of both primary and secondary method of data collection. Secondary data was sourced from course books, diary articles, the web, magazines, commission reports and papers. For the primary data, the survey method was used which includes investigating through the use of the questionnaire.
The result showed that environmental change, encroachment on areas of land reserved for grazing by farmers and encroachment on farms by breeders, the proliferation of small arms and crime in rural areas etc. are triggers of the farmers-herdsmen crisis in Nigeria. It additionally showed that the federal government and the state government in states where instances of the conflict have been recorded have singularly and in joint effort concoct various explanations, approaches and activities, for example, the organization of safety agents to networks where conflicts have happened, the introduction of a few councils fully intent on thinking of suggestions to end the contention and the detailing of strategies expected to end the conflict like the prohibiting of open brushing in certain states. At last, discoveries uncover that the disappointment of the public authority to think of preventive measures to check the contention; unfortunate execution of figured out approaches; nonattendance of strict resistance and political avoidance are holes in government the executives methodologies of the farmers herders struggle in Nigeria.
The study concluded that the management structures, processes and strategies of government in addressing the farmers-herdsmen crisis are inadequate to the extent that they are more reactionary than preventive or proactive, have implementation lapses and are bedevilled by political exclusion.
