Report on Conflict-Driven Food Insecurity in Nigeria and its Impact on Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: A Deepening Crisis

Nigeria is currently facing a severe food insecurity crisis, exacerbated by escalating attacks on farming communities by militant herdsmen. This conflict, which has expanded from the northern regions into the nation’s central agricultural heartland, poses a direct and significant threat to the achievement of several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), most notably SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

Analysis of the Conflict’s Impact on Sustainable Development Goals

SDG 2: Zero Hunger

The conflict is systematically dismantling local food systems and agricultural productivity, directly contravening the objectives of SDG 2. The primary impacts include:

• Forced Reduction in Cultivation: Reports indicate that farmers are abandoning the majority of their land due to fear of attacks. According to Greg Kelley of Unknown Nations, farmers who once cultivated 100 acres are now only able to farm five.
• Destruction of Farmland: Militant herdsmen are reportedly directing their cattle through farmlands, destroying crops and disrupting harvests, which further diminishes the food supply.
• Acute Food Insecurity: The World Food Programme reports that conflict has left nearly 5 million people in northeast Nigeria facing acute food insecurity. The expansion of violence into the “breadbasket” states of Benue and Plateau threatens to worsen these figures significantly.

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

The ongoing violence and lack of effective response undermine progress towards SDG 16, which aims to promote peaceful and inclusive societies and provide access to justice for all.

• Escalation and Spread of Violence: The conflict, which began around 2011, has moved beyond its initial concentration in northern Nigeria and now severely affects central states, demonstrating a failure to contain violence.
• Loss of Life: Attacks continue to result in significant casualties. A single attack on July 14 in a predominantly Christian farming village in Plateau State resulted in at least 32 fatalities.
• Lack of Accountability: A critical issue highlighted is the perception that authorities are overlooking these atrocities, with no one being held accountable for the violence. This erodes trust in institutions and perpetuates a cycle of conflict, directly opposing SDG 16’s goal of building effective and accountable institutions.

Interconnected SDG Challenges

The crisis creates a cascade of negative impacts across other critical SDGs:

1. SDG 1 (No Poverty) & SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth): By destroying the primary livelihood of farming communities, the conflict drives rural poverty and disrupts the agricultural economy, which is a key sector for employment and economic stability.
2. SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being): The immediate violence results in loss of life and injury, while long-term food insecurity leads to malnutrition and related health issues.
3. SDG 15 (Life on Land): The core of the issue is an unsustainable and violent conflict over land use, preventing the peaceful and sustainable management of terrestrial ecosystems.

Recommendations and Forward-Looking Strategies

Addressing the crisis requires a multi-faceted approach that integrates humanitarian aid with long-term peacebuilding and development efforts. Based on stakeholder input, the following actions are recommended:

• Address the underlying humanitarian crisis with immediate aid to affected populations.
• Invest in local leadership development and community-led peacebuilding initiatives to foster resilience and social cohesion.
• Provide essential resources to displaced and vulnerable communities to support well-being and information access, such as the distribution of solar-powered audio devices.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article highlights issues that are directly connected to the following Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs):

1. SDG 2: Zero Hunger

   • Explanation: The article’s primary focus is on the growing “food insecurity” in Nigeria. It explicitly states that “Food insecurity plagues Nigeria” and that conflict is a major cause. The disruption of farming activities, such as farmers reducing their cultivated land from “100 acres” to “five acres,” and the destruction of farmlands by herdsmen directly threaten food production and access, which are central to SDG 2.

2. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • Explanation: The article extensively discusses the violent “clashes between herdsmen and farmers” that have been ongoing since 2011. It describes these events as “attacks” and “atrocities” that result in deaths, such as the attack that “killed at least 32 people.” Furthermore, it points to a failure of governance and justice by stating that “No one is being held accountable” and that the authorities are “overlooking” the violence. This directly relates to the goal of promoting peaceful societies, reducing violence, and building effective, accountable institutions.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the article’s content, the following specific SDG targets can be identified:

1. Target 2.1: End hunger and ensure access to food

   • Explanation: This target aims to end hunger and ensure access for all people to safe, nutritious, and sufficient food all year round. The article directly relates to this by highlighting that “nearly 5 million people in northeast Nigeria face acute food insecurity due to conflict.”

2. Target 2.4: Sustainable food production and resilient agricultural practices

   • Explanation: This target focuses on ensuring sustainable food production systems. The article shows how this is being undermined. The conflict forces farmers to abandon their land (“run these farmers out”) and disrupts harvests (“trash the farmers’ lands, which ultimately disrupts the food [harvest]”), preventing the implementation of resilient agricultural practices.

3. Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates

   • Explanation: This target is directly addressed through the article’s descriptions of ongoing violence. The mention of “clashes,” “attacks,” and a specific incident where a “Fulani attack on July 14th killed at least 32 people” points directly to the failure to reduce violence and related death rates in the region.

4. Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law and ensure equal access to justice

   • Explanation: The article highlights a lack of accountability and justice. The statement that “No one is being held accountable” for the “atrocities” directly points to a failure in the rule of law and the inability of victims to access justice, which is the core of this target.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, the article mentions and implies several indicators that can be used to measure progress:

1. Indicator for Target 2.1: Prevalence of severe food insecurity

   • Indicator: The article provides a specific number: “nearly 5 million people in northeast Nigeria face acute food insecurity.” This figure serves as a direct indicator of the prevalence of hunger.

2. Indicator for Target 2.4: Change in agricultural land use

   • Indicator: The article provides a qualitative and quantitative example of the reduction in agricultural activity: “people who were farming 100 acres, but now they’re only farming five acres.” This change in the area of land being farmed is a clear indicator of the conflict’s impact on food production systems.

3. Indicator for Target 16.1: Number of victims of intentional homicide/conflict-related deaths

   • Indicator: The article provides a specific data point: “A Fulani attack on July 14th killed at least 32 people.” This number is a direct indicator used to measure progress (or lack thereof) in reducing violence and death rates.

4. Indicator for Target 16.3: Proportion of the population who have experienced a dispute and who accessed a formal or informal dispute resolution mechanism

   • Indicator: While not providing a number, the article implies a very low or zero proportion through the statement, “No one is being held accountable.” This qualitative statement serves as an indicator of the lack of access to justice and the failure of institutional accountability.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: mnnonline.org