HOUSEHOLD LIVELIHOOD AND COPING STRATEGIES OF NOMADS IN NORTHEASTERN NIGERIA

ATTENTION:

BEFORE YOU READ THE ABSTRACT OR CHAPTER ONE OF THE PROJECT TOPICS BELOW, PLEASE READ THE INFORMATION BELOW.THANK YOU!

INFORMATION:

YOU CAN GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT OF THE TOPIC BELOW. THE FULL PROJECT COST N5,000 ONLY. THE FULL INFORMATION ON HOW TO PAY AND GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT IS AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE. OR

YOU CAN CALL: 08068231953, 08137701720

WHATSAPP US ON: 08137701720

HOUSEHOLD LIVELIHOOD AND COPING STRATEGIES OF NOMADS IN NORTHEASTERN NIGERIA

ABSTRACT

The changing climate heightens drought situations especially in Northern Nigeria and induces multiple stresses on nomads and their animals. Resulting water and pasture insufficiency impose hardship on their livelihood. Little is known about coping strategies adopted for their stressed livelihood. Therefore, household livelihood and coping strategies of nomads in Northeastern Nigeria were investigated.

A four-stage sampling procedure was used to select respondents for the study. Three states (Adamawa, Taraba and Bauchi) were randomly selected from the six states in the study area. From these states, 15% of Local Government Areas (three, two, and three, respectively) were randomly selected, while five communities and 10 respondents were randomly selected from each, giving a total of 400 respondents. Interview schedule and Focus Group Discussion (FGD) were used to collect data on respondents’ socioeconomic characteristics, coping strategies (low: 1.00-12.20; high: 12.21-38.00)], perception of the effects of drought (unfavourable: 40.00-95.91; favourable: 95.92-118.00), challenges to livelihood and livelihood status: (low: 0.00-3.61; high: 3.62-11.65). Livelihood status was made up of access to capital assets, livelihood activities in the dry season (low: 0.00-26.16; high: 26.17-122.00) and rainy season (low: 0.00-23.90; high: 23.9181.00) and household capabilities (low: 5.00-25.17; high: 25.18-83.00). Capital assets include: human/social (low: 0.00-5.61; high: 5.62-47.00), natural (low: 0.00-5.59; high: 5.60-8.00), physical (low: 0.00-6.89; high: 6.90-15.00) and financial (low: 0.00-1.32; high: 1.33-6.00). Data were analysed using descriptive statistics, Pearson’s product moment correlation, multiple linear regression and ANOVA at α 0.05.

Most respondents were married (91.1%), below 56 years (84.0%), male (90.8%) with one wife (62.6%), children (6.0±3.99) and dependents (3.0±1.60). Majority (81.3%) had no formal education and was primarily engaged in animal husbandry (77.7%) with monthly income of N15, 000 (I.Q.R.: N37, 000). Majority (65.6%) of the respondents had low access to human/social capital, 60.7% had high access to natural capital, 59.5% had high access to physical capital and 75.2% had low access to financial capital. Many (55.8%) had low use of livelihood activities in dry season, high use (23.91-81.00) in the rainy season (59.5%) and low household capability (62.3%). Many respondents had low coping strategies (63.5%) and favourable perception of the effects of drought on their livelihood (52.1%). Most (82.6%) noticed major alterations in rainfall patterns with hunger (58.6%) and poverty (57.6%) being consequent impacts. Other challenges to livelihood included migration for drought related problems (70%), lack of rainfall (45.0%) and drying up of lakes and streams (35.9%). The FGD revealed that terrorist activities led to disruption of respondents’ social and cultural activities and loss of livelihoods as well as death of many nomadic household members. Livelihood status significantly correlated with monthly income from primary occupation (r=0.23) and number of total coping strategies used (r=0.631).

Significant difference existed in respondents’ coping strategies and livelihood status across states. Respondents’ age (β=-0.29), number of sources of income (β=0.20), number of secondary occupation (β=-0.26), perception (β=0.18) and number of coping strategies used (β=0.33) contributed significantly to livelihood status.

Livelihood status and use of coping strategies of nomads in Northeastern Nigeria were low.

Keywords: Livelihood capabilities, Capital assets, Coping strategies, Northeastern Nigeria, Nomads

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTENTS PAGES

Certification ii

Dedication iii

Acknowledgements iv

Abstract v

Table of Contents vi

List of Tables x

List of Plates xii

List of Figures xiii

List of Appendices xiv

CHAPTER ONE 1

INTRODUCTION 1

Background to the Study 1

1.1.1. Household livelihood 1

1.1.2. Pastoralists and their livelihoods 2

1.1.3. Drought and its effects on livelihoods 4

1.1.4. Coping strategies in changing climatic conditions 5

Statement of Problems 5

Objectives of the Study 7

Research Hypotheses 8

Significance of the study 8

Scope and limitations of Study 10

Conceptual and theoretical definitions of terms 10

CHAPTER TWO 12 LITERATURE REVIEW 12

Introduction 12

Vulnerability of Human and Natural systems to Climate Change 12

Biophysical and social vulnerability 13

Adaptive capacity, adaptation and vulnerability 16

Types of environmental hazards and adaptive capacity 17

Adaptive capacity to current and potential vulnerability 18

Challenges of sustaining livelihood in arid regions 19

Basic livelihood model 20

Accessing livelihood capital/assets in a sustainable manner 22

Objectives of livelihood and adjustment in behavior due to changing external

Environment 23

Household livelihood activities 24

Diversification of livelihood activities 25

Diversification as a coping strategy 25

Impacts of diversification on livelihood 26

Migration as a method of diversifying livelihoods 27

CHAPTER THREE 29

THEORETICAL AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 29

Theoretical Framework 29

Coping Theory 29

Orientation of conceptual framework of the study 30

CHAPTER FOUR 33 METHODOLOGY 33

Study Area 33

Study population 34

Sampling procedure and sample size 34

Instruments for data collection and validity test 34

Pre-testing the Instrument 37

Measurement of Variables 37

Dependent Variable 37

Independent Variables 37

4.7. Data Analytical Tools 40

CHAPTER FIVE 42

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 42

5.1. Research objective 1: Selected personal characteristics of respondents 42

Distribution of the respondents according to age 42

Distribution of respondents by gender and marital status 44

Distribution of respondents by household size 44

Respondents’ highest level of education 47

Distribution of respondents by occupation 47

Distribution of respondents by monthly income 50

Distribution of respondents by sources of capital for their enterprise 50

Amount sourced by respondents for their enterprise 53

Demography and population 53

Land ownership and migration patterns 53

5.2. Objective 2: Access to capital assets 56

Distribution of respondents by membership and leadership of social groups 56

Distribution of respondents by human capital 56

Access to and ownership of natural capital and frequency of access 60

Access to and ownership of physical capital and frequency of access 60

Access to financial capital and frequency of access 61

Access to drought warning systems 61

5.3. Objective 3: To enumerate respondents’ livelihood activities in dry and rainy

seasons 66

Farm-related livelihood activities during the dry season 66

Farm-related livelihood activities during the rainy season 68

Non-farm related livelihood activities during the dry season 68

Non-farm-related livelihood activities during the rainy season 68

Objective 4: Examine the livelihood capabilities of the nomadic households 74

Objective 5: Respondents’ level of perception of effects of drought 74

5.5.1. Perceived impact of alterations in rainfall patterns and water levels on livelihood 74

Objective 6: Examine the number of coping strategies used by nomads 75

Objective 7: Catalogue of respondents’ challenges 82

Some factors/activities in which respondents faced challenges in the last

five years 82

Change in some factors/activities due to change in rainfall 82

Respondents’ challenges associated with windstorms 85

Respondents’ challenges associated with migration 87

Respondents’ challenges associated with insurgence by terrorists 90

5.7.5.1 The effect of insurgence on social and cultural activities 90

5.7.5.2 The effect of insurgency on marketing activities 90

5.8. Test of Hypotheses 91

5.8.1. The dependent variable

5.8.2. Hypothesis 1: There is no significant relationship between selected personal

characteristics of the nomads in the study area and their livelihood status. 91

5.8.2.1 Chi square analysis of selected personal characteristics of the respondents 91

5.8.2.2 Pearson’s Product of Moment Correlation (PPMC) between livelihood status of

respondents and selected personal characteristics 94

Hypothesis 2: Independent variables do not contribute significantly to

livelihood status 94

Hypothesis 3: There is no significant relationship between respondents’

perception and livelihood status 97

Hypothesis 4: There is no significant relationship between the number of coping strategies used by respondents during drought and livelihood status 97

Hypothesis 5: There is no significant difference in the coping strategies adopted by respondents across the three selected states in Northeastern Nigeria 98

Hypothesis 6: There is no significant difference in the livelihood status of the nomads across the three selected states in Northeastern Nigeria. 105

Hypothesis 7: There is no significant relationship between respondents’ monthly incomes from primary and secondary occupation and livelihood status 108

Hypothesis 8: There is no significant relationship between the challenges faced

by respondents and livelihood status 110

CHAPTER SIX 112

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 112

Summary 112

Conclusion 118

Recommendations 120

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1. BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

The background to the study considered household livelihood, pastoralists and their livelihoods, drought and its effects on livelihoods and coping strategies in challenging climatic conditions.

1.1.1. HOUSEHOLD LIVELIHOOD

In general terms, the concept of human livelihood encompasses the extent to which people are able to access the resources available to them in other to meet their needs. Several authors have shown the importance of sustainable livelihoods in the wellbeing of human populations in both rural and urban settings (Nzeh, 2015; Norhasmah, Zalilah, Mohd, Nasir, Kandiah and Asnarulkhadi, 2010). A landmark definition by Chambers and Conway (1991) portrays livelihood to comprise the capabilities, assets (including both material and social resources) and activities required for a means of living. They also assert that a livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stress and shocks and maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets both now and in the future, while not undermining the natural resource base.

Similarly, Carney (1998) defines livelihood as the capabilities, assets and activities required for a means of living. In this context: assets include the stores of resources, access and claims to natural, physical and financial capital; capabilities comprising of both human capital (education, skills, the ability to labor and good health to pursue different livelihood strategies) and social capital (membership of households, groups and relationships of trust), while activities include diversified activities (on-farm and off-farm). Ellis (2000) brought in a more explicit consideration of the claims and access issues, and in particular the impact of social relations and institutions that mediate an individual or family‟s capacity to secure a means of living. Most studies consider the household as the most appropriate social group for investigating livelihoods (Makoti, 2014; Berman, Quinn and Paavola, 2013; Okoro and Odebode,

2009). Household livelihoods however, are founded on the aggregation and dynamics of its individual members, which suggests that to understand the pervasive features of rural households, some account of the intra-household dynamics (by gender, age or status) will be necessary. Definitions of households have emphasized co-residence, sharing the same meals – “cooking and feeding from one pot”- and understanding joint or co-ordinated decision making. Rural households have been regarded as the center of rural social systems (Morris, Butterworth, Lamboll, Lazaro, Maganza, and Marsland, 2001).

All the livelihood assets available to the household represent the basic platform upon which household livelihood is built. Livelihood focuses on the totality of means by which people secure a living, acquire in one way or another the requirement for survival and the satisfaction of the needs as defined by people themselves in all aspects of their lives (Olawoye, 2000). Household livelihood therefore comprises of all the means by which households obtain and maintain access to the resources necessary to ensure their immediate and long term survival and include all activities with the potential of increasing household income, reducing household expenditure and producing other benefits that support health and wellbeing and make peoples‟ lives more satisfactory and secure. These means are used by households to increase their ability to withstand shocks and manage the risks that threaten their wellbeing, such as drought, aridity and seasonal climatic variations in Northeastern Nigeria.

1.1.2 PASTORALISTS AND THEIR LIVELIHOODS

Some authors (Hassan, 2002; Nicholls, 2004; Brooks, Brown and Grist, 2009a), assert that pastoralism arose in Africa 5000 years ago precisely as an adaptation to local climate variations that precipitated periodic droughts at that time. As rainfall declined and became temporally and spatially more variable, plant resources and wild animals became scarce, making cattle pastoralism the most sensible and viable option to cope with the reality that reliable supplies of large quantities of permanent water simply did not exist (Marshall and Hildebrand, 2002). Africa has an estimated 30 million pastoralists out of which about 10 million are found in Nigeria. The Nigerian pastoralists are made up of various ethnic groups with the largest group being the Fulani that constitute about 95 per cent of the nomadic herders in Nigeria. Bearing at least thirteen names in West Africa, and found in more than twenty countries, the

Fulani make up the continent‟s most diffuse ethno-cultural group (Islam, 2001).

According to Adebayo (1995), the Fulani pastoralists immigrated into Hausa land from the Senegambia valley in the western Sudan. The immigration spanned several centuries as they traversed the West African savanna in small groups of compound families, reflecting the patrilineal system. Droughts have resulted in immense losses in resources and affected the livelihoods of many who depend on the ecosystem for survival, particularly the pastoralists (Orindi, Nyong, and Herrero, 2007). The deteriorating environmental conditions, land degradation and recurrent drought that hit the Sahel region during the 1960-1970s largely account for the exodus of Fulani herdsmen from their homelands into the northern guinea savanna of West Africa (Tonah, 2002).

Pastoral and agro-pastoral communities differentiate from other rural groups by the specific relevance of livestock-based activities and mobility patterns for their livelihoods. In contrast to sedentary farmers and breeders, pastoral herders and their flocks (and often households) move through places and seasons. Their livestock forage is mainly natural as opposed to cultivated fodders and pastures. Pastoral resource management is based on a complex set of temporary or semi-permanent claims on pasture, water and other resources, as well as on the underlying principles of flexibility and reciprocity. Land, which is the resource base of pastoralists is not a fixed individually owned capital, but rather a flexible asset with specific use and access mechanisms (Sandford and Habtu, 2000; Thebaud and Batterbury, 2001; Nori, Switzer and Crawford, 2005).

By their culture, tradition and occupation, the Fulani tribesmen are itinerant people and do not own lands nor have permanent abodes. They are known for drawing their livelihood from rearing livestock which often involves mobile livestock rearing. They live with their cattle wherever there is abundance of fodder and absence of tsetse fly which threatens the existence of their cattle. The Fulani nomads in Nigeria used to embark on seasonal migrations from north to south but this has become an all seasons‟ migration due to the fact that overgrazing in the north has given way to desertification (Nzeh, 2015). Ofem and Inyang (2014) assert that in previous years, a symbiotic relationship existed between nomadic families and the farm settlements on which they stopped to rest. However, the presence of nomads and their cattle have provoked many violent clashes in many farm communities in Nigeria, in recent years. The security of pastoral livelihoods depends mainly on the condition of the herd, which in turn relies on the availability and quality of rangeland for grazing. The herd must have access to dispersed, ecologically specialized and seasonally varied grazing lands and watering holes to provide for the distinct foraging needs of different livestock species and to afford a margin of safety against the normally erratic pattern of rainfall (Nori, et.al., 2005).

The Fulanis‟ production system, pastoralism, is based on unrestricted grazing and movement of ruminant livestock (mainly cattle) in response to variation in the availability of water, grazing pasture and the limitation imposed on cattle production by flies and livestock diseases (Fabusoro and Oyegbami, 2009). Unrestricted grazing and various types of migration practiced by Fulani pastoralists provide the best strategy to manage the variations in their livestock grazing resources and unpredictability of rainfall and available water sources. The Fulani nomadic lifestyle makes it possible for them to cope with unpredictability and risks associated with their pastoral livelihood mean.

1.1.3. DROUGHT AND ITS EFFECTS ON LIVELIHOODS

Drought is a prolonged lack of rainfall and/or absence of surface water in a geographical area. It is an injurious impact of climate change that decimates lives and hinders socio-economic development. The 2007/2008 Human Development Report warns that, in the next 50-80 years, an extra 600 million people are likely to be affected by malnutrition; an additional 1.8 billion people are likely to be living in water-stressed environments as a result of climate change (UNDP, 2007). The projections indicate that by 2060, extensive drought spells would threaten the cultivation of about 18.6 million hectares of traditional rain-fed lands in Sudano-Sahel regions of Africa. Many studies (Brooks, 2003; Balgis et al., 2005; Pantuliano, 2005; Brooks, 2006; Mwangi and Desanker, 2006, 2007; IPCC, 2007a, IPCC, 2007b) have shown the adverse impacts of drought, climate variability and extremes on the livelihoods of rural communities in the dry regions of developing countries. In most of these cases, rainfall, rain-fed lakes and basins of seasonal rivers were the only reliable sources of fresh water for the people.

Furthermore, Ayouba (2009) shows average rainfall decreases by about 6 mm/month during the rainy season in the Lake Chad Basin. The livelihoods of the migrant pastoralists who live within these watersheds are therefore threatened. Recent studies confirm that the arid and semi-arid regions of Africa are the most vulnerable areas to climate variability because of multiple stresses and low adaptive capacity (OsmanElasha, 2007; IPCC, 2007a). This vulnerability is due to several factors such as: seasonality of pastureland, drought, and over-exploitation of natural resources, widespread poverty, poor infrastructure, high illiteracy rates, conflicts, and dependence of a large share of its economies on climate-sensitive sectors (mainly rain-fed agriculture). These factors, coupled with limited institutional and technological capabilities have subsequently affected food production, water resources, biodiversity and human and livestock populations. Thus, livelihoods that arise from agriculture, forestry, fisheries and local commerce have been disrupted.

1.1.4. COPING STRATEGIES IN CHANGING CLIMATIC CONDITIONS

Livelihood diversification and coping strategies are recognized as separate activities (Ellis 1998), yet diversification can improve coping opportunities (McLeman and Smit, 2006). Unfortunately, with increasing population, poverty, illiteracy, coupled with various risks and the resulting patterns of loss, there seems to be a breakdown in the effectiveness of coping strategies (Ayouba, 2009). While households with diverse long-term livelihood strategies are known to be better positioned to offset climate risk than those who rely on non-farm work as short- term coping strategies (Cunguara, Langyintuo and Darnhofer, 2011), this success depends on existing customary livelihoods.

1. 2. STATEMENT OF PROBLEMS

According to Jopson (2009), a few million nomadic pastoralists who have trekked across the arid lands of sub-Saharan Africa for thousands of years with their animals may be on the move outside traditional ranges due to environmental challenges. According to Salman and Momha (2009), an unprecedented array of crises ranging from food security to socio-political conflicts to disease epidemics have been reported at various locations proxy to the water basins in northeastern Nigeria, and they are expected to escalate if urgent measures are not taken. For instance, many pastoralists that used to herd their animals within the northeastern parts have now expanded southwards to areas in the Upper Benue river basin (Ayouba, 2009).

Climate change is a global phenomenon whose impacts are felt locally and invariably the adaptation capacities and the strategies employed to cope are localized. Adaptation to climate change and variability has become an important response worthy of research in order to reduce the vulnerability of people to the impacts of climate change and hence minimize costs associated with the inevitable impacts (Maiti, Jha, Garai, Nag, Chakravarty, Kadian, Chandel, Datta, and Upadhayay, 2014). One of the inevitable consequences of climate change already manifested in northeastern Nigeria is prolonged drought.

Prolonged drought is a threat to human development and wellbeing of people. In many parts of Africa including the Northeastern part of Nigeria, the length of dry season has gradually increased, thus triggering the migration of many communities from their ancestral domains, with resultant new settlements, new livelihoods and consequently new adaptations and coping strategies (Ayouba, 2009; Salman and Momha, 2009). At present, many communities in northeastern Nigeria, consisting mostly of farmers, gatherers, hunters, pastoralists and their households, have migrated and can be described as climate refugees at various new locations. For many of these people, normal climate has been replaced with unpredictable patterns of dust storms, rainstorms, heat waves and an alternation between drought and floods, leading to a disruption of livelihoods that arise from agriculture, local commerce, forestry, fisheries and public health. Jopson (2009) asserts that these nomadic pastoralists and their families could be the last generation and among the first mass casualties of climate change because in the people‟s own opinion, their ancient way of life has no future.

Northeastern Nigeria is vulnerable to drought and the prevailing drought-induced problems faced by pastoralists in the area include: several rainy seasons fail in succession; water sources dry up; grazing lands dry up and cannot regenerate; animals become thin and sick and cannot be sold; animals stop calving and producing milk. Other problems include: increasing human and animal populations with reduced food and pasture lands to live on; the available pasturelands have been over-grazed; water resources have been depleted and cattle raids by rival tribes are more frequent.

In order to mitigate losses of the Nigerian nomads‟ livelihoods, especially to drought, it is vital to study the status of livelihood among nomadic communities whose livelihood have been affected by drought stress, to obtain information on the multifaceted challenges they face from drought and how these affect their livelihood. Also, to investigate the strategies they adopt in order to cope with their challenges. Such additional information can help provide insight that could enhance the resilience of the nomads to drought.

In light of the foregoing, the study seeks to answer the following questions:

What are the personal characteristics of the nomads within the boundaries of the major water basins in Northeastern Nigeria?

What assets do the nomads in the study area have access to?

What livelihood activities do the nomads in the study area engage in?

What livelihood capabilities are possessed by nomads in the study area?

What is the perception of the nomads about drought?

What household coping strategies are used by the nomads in response to drought?

What are the various challenges facing the nomads in the study area?

1.3. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The general objective of this study is to examine the household livelihood and coping strategies of nomads in Northeastern Nigeria.

The specific objectives are to:

describe the personal characteristics of respondents in the study area.

identify the assets that the respondents in the study area have access to.

enumerate the livelihood activities which respondents in the study area engage in.

investigate the capabilities of the respondents‟ households in the study area.

examine the respondents‟ perception of the effect of drought on their livelihood.

investigate the coping strategies adopted by respondents in response to drought in the study area.

catalogue various drought-related challenges faced by nomads in the study area.

1.4. RESEARCH HYPOTHESES

There is no significant relationship between selected personal characteristics of nomads facing drought in the study area and their livelihood status.

There is no significant contribution by independent variables to livelihood status

There is no significant relationship between respondents‟ perception of the effect of drought and livelihood status.

There is no significant relationship between the respondents‟ coping strategies to drought and their livelihood status.

There is no significant difference in the coping strategies adopted by the nomads in response to drought across the three selected states in Northeastern Nigeria.

There is no significant difference in the livelihood status of the nomads across the three selected states in Northeastern Nigeria.

There is no significant relationship between respondents‟ income from primary and secondary occupation and livelihood status.

There is no significant relationship between the challenges faced by the respondents and their livelihood status

1.5. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

The livestock sub-sector accounts for one-third of agricultural Gross Domestic Product

(GDP) and 3.2% of the nation‟s GDP (C.B.N., 2013). The contribution of the Fulani pastoralists to the national food security in Nigeria is very vital as they engage in over

90 per cent of the nation‟s livestock production (Fabusoro and Oyegbami, 2009). Cattle are a major source of animal protein consumed by many Nigerians due to the availability and comparative price to other animal protein products.

According to Mwangi and Desanker (2006), drought is the most injurious impact of climate change that decimates lives and hinders socio-economic development in most rangelands in sub-Saharan Africa. At the various United Nations climate conferences held at Copenhagen in 2009, Mexico in 2010 and South Africa in 2011, it was widely recognized that developing countries stand to suffer disproportionately from the effects of climate change; particularly disrupted rainfall patterns. This is because developing countries are in the weakest position to mitigate the adverse effects of climate change, and also stand to lose some of the current development gains that have been made as a result (Frankel-Reed et al., 2009; Hayed and Brooks, 2009; Jopson, 2009).

The arid/semi-arid lands of sub-Saharan Africa are characterized by limited water supply, low and highly variable rainfall, and recurrent droughts (Shauri, 2011). The situation is grave for rural people in dry areas, such as northeastern Nigeria, because the current agricultural production system is already an adaptation to hostile environmental circumstances, especially drought (Brooks et al., 2009). Brooks et al., (2009b) indicate that the frequency and intensity of droughts will increase in many areas where dry-land farming is the chief source of livelihood, with heavy reliance on rainfall. Even where surface water accumulates, it is not easily retained due to high temperatures and intense precipitation that cause water to be lost to evaporation and run off, respectively (IIRR, 2002).

In northeastern Nigeria, the duration of dry seasons has gradually increased, triggering the migration of many communities from their ancestral domains (Ayouba, 2009; Jopson, 2009). This has resulted into new settlements, new livelihoods and consequent coping strategies (Ayouba, 2009; Salman and Momha, 2009). Many rural communities in the Northeastern Nigeria, consisting mostly of farmers, gatherers, hunters, and pastoralists have migrated from their ancestral domains and could now best be described as environmental refugees at various new locations. For many of these people the erstwhile reliability of water supply was hinged on predictable hydrological cycles and fairly stable ecological systems, particularly rainfall. As such, livelihoods of the rural dwellers that arise from agriculture, local commerce, forestry, fisheries and public health (herbalists) have been disrupted (Deschenes and Greenstone, 2007; Ayouba, 2009). Normal rainfall cycles have now been replaced with unpredictable patterns of dust storms, rainstorms, heat waves and a persisting paradox of alternating drought and floods (IPCC, 2007; Jopson, 2009).

It then becomes very vital to study the status of livelihood among communities whose lives and livelihoods have been altered by drought and the ways they have fashioned to cope with the challenges. One of the ways to understand livelihood systems is to analyze the coping and adaptive strategies pursued by individuals and communities as a response to external shocks and stresses, such as drought in this case. According to Ayouba (2009), humans have been adapting to changing climatic conditions and to the impact of extreme drought in around water basins for several centuries, but much of this adaptation occurred gradually. Unfortunately, with increasing population, poverty, illiteracy, coupled with various drought related risks in recent decades, there seems to be a breakdown in the effectiveness of coping strategies (Ayouba, 2009).

In northeastern Nigeria, the rangelands are fragile and degraded, and the inhabitants are mostly poverty-stricken. It is therefore important to investigate the household livelihood of the pastoralists facing drought related stress in the study area, to investigate their coping strategies and catalogue the challenges they face in order to inform better means of sustaining rural livelihoods and promote the formulation of helpful policies at the national levels.

1.6. SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF STUDY

The study investigated the household livelihood of nomads in Northeastern Nigeria and how they are coping with drought related stresses. It investigated if there is any relationship between the livelihood status of the nomads and coping strategies to drought. In the course of the study, a socio-political conflict arose in Northeastern

Nigeria by a terrorist organization known as Jama‟atu Ahlis Sunna Lidda‟awati walJihad; code-named Boko Haram. The insecurity was worse in Borno State during the period of data collection, leading to its exclusion from the study.

1.7. CONCEPTUAL AND THEORETICAL DEFINITIONS OF TERMS

Conceptual and theoretical definitions of terms that are used in this study are outlined below. Definitions are put in context of the objectives of this study.

Rural areas: settlements where dwellers livelihood depend more on natural resources.

Household: all the members living in a family unit: parents, children and dependents.

Livelihood status: the capabilities, assets and livelihood activities required for living.

Assets: include natural, physical and financial capital.

Capabilities: human and social capital including household size, household educational level and skills.

Livelihood activities: activities with the potential of increasing income and reducing expenditure.

Coping strategies: short term activities carried out by people to target specific shocks in order to reduce exposure to or cushion the adverse effects of shocks or external threat.

Drought: an extended period of time when a region is significantly deficient in its natural water supply with hazardous impact on the people, ecosystem and agriculture of the affected region.

HOW TO RECEIVE PROJECT MATERICAL(S)

After paying the appropriate amount (#5,000) into our bank Account below, send the following information to

08068231953 or 08168759420

(1) Your project topics

(2) Email Address

(3) Payment Name

(4) Teller Number

We will send your material(s) after we receive bank alert

BANK ACCOUNTS

Account Name: AMUTAH DANIEL CHUKWUDI

Account Number: 0046579864

Bank: GTBank.