At the dawn of a new administration led by a highly regarded economist, the people of an agrarian community in Abia State had high hopes for meaningful development. However, their initial joy is fast turning into despair as they face the reality of a proposed international airport project that threatens to take away their ancestral farmlands, their sole means of livelihood.
Estate agents, claiming to represent the Abia State Government, have been making daily rounds, pressuring landowners to sign over their plots through powers of attorney. Some of these agents insist that they have been authorized to conduct an enumeration of the land despite an existing court injunction maintaining the status quo. Yet, there remains ambiguity over the legitimacy of their actions. The affected community members have demanded a map outlining the specific land area the government intends to acquire, along with a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) detailing the terms of acquisition. To date, neither the map nor an MOU has been provided. Speculations suggest that the government seeks more than 1,000 hectares of land, a move that raises serious economic, environmental, and social concerns.
Adding to the anxiety of the locals, there has been no Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA) to assess the potential consequences of the airport project on the ecosystem, agricultural sustainability, and overall health of the community. If due diligence is not conducted, this project may end up causing more harm than good, turning what was meant to be a developmental initiative into a catalyst for economic displacement and food insecurity.
Given the foregoing backdrop, there is no denying the fact that there are inherent implications that lie at the labyrinth of the airport project. If the government proceeds with acquiring such a vast amount of land from an agrarian community, the consequences will be dire. The community’s farming activities, which have been passed down through generations, will come to an abrupt halt.
Take, for instance, a 70-year-old farmer who has tilled his land for decades, providing for his family and educating his children through the proceeds of agriculture. If his land is confiscated, what alternative means of livelihood will be available to him? Can he realistically learn a new skill at his age and use the promised compensation to start a fresh career? As a certified trainer, I can confidently say that learning new skills at an advanced age is not as easy as government agents may suggest. A large percentage of landowners in the affected communities fall into this category, making their displacement even more concerning.
Furthermore, once the land is taken, the cost of acquiring land in neighboring communities will skyrocket, making it nearly impossible for affected landowners to buy new farmland. Even if they somehow manage to acquire alternative land, the logistics of traveling to distant farms daily will be impractical and financially draining. The likely outcome? Many will abandon farming altogether, leading to increased poverty, hunger, and food scarcity in the state.
Moreover, the government’s assertion that locals will find employment opportunities at the airport is a weak argument. The reality is that the community does not have a pool of trained aviation experts such as aircraft engineers, technicians, pilots, or logistics specialists. At best, a handful of locals may be employed as cleaners, security personnel, or messengers, jobs that do not provide the same financial stability as farming. What happens to the thousands of displaced farmers who will have no source of income? The answer is grim: deepening poverty, migration to urban slums, and heightened socio-economic distress.
Not only that, there are also environmental and health concerns that come with the project. Beyond economic hardship, the airport project also poses significant environmental and health risks. The massive land clearing required for construction will likely result in deforestation, leading to biodiversity loss and climate change effects such as increased flooding and soil degradation.
Additionally, the operation of an airport generates high levels of noise pollution and air contamination from aircraft emissions. Without adequate environmental assessments and mitigation strategies, residents may suffer from increased respiratory diseases, hearing problems, and other health complications.
Curiously, despite the enormous impact such a project will have on local communities, there has been no formal discussion on strategies to mitigate these risks. This lack of transparency further fuels skepticism about the government’s true intentions.
At this juncture, it is expedient to ask: Is an international airport the right priority? Is an international airport the most urgent developmental priority for these agrarian communities? These are, no doubt, the fundamental questions which virtually everyone is asking. The amount of money required to construct the airport, whether through government funding or public-private partnerships, could be channeled into more immediate and practical projects that directly benefit the people.
For instance, the government could establish small-scale agricultural processing industries to add value to farm produce, creating employment opportunities and boosting local economies. Expanding local markets to attract buyers from other regions would also provide a sustainable economic foundation. Other essential infrastructural developments such as hospitals, better schools, road networks, improved power supply, and enhanced security would yield more tangible benefits to the communities than an airport.
It is also worth noting that several Nigerian airports, including some federal ones, struggle with low passenger traffic and operational inefficiencies. The reality is that the return on investment for an airport in Abia State may not justify the displacement of an entire farming community.
However, while development is essential, it must be pursued with fairness, empathy, and sustainability in mind. Instead of pushing ahead with a large-scale airport project that displaces farmers and threatens livelihoods, the Abia State Government should consider an alternative, phased approach.
One viable solution is to begin with an airstrip rather than a full-scale international airport. A modest airstrip would allow the community to gradually adapt to the presence of aviation infrastructure. Over time, as demand and economic conditions justify expansion, the project could evolve into a full-fledged airport with the community’s support.
Additionally, the government must engage in meaningful dialogue with genuine landowners to ensure a transparent and fair negotiation process. The request for land acquisition should be significantly reduced, with a well-documented MOU that clearly outlines the terms of engagement. Compensation must not only be monetary but should include sustainable livelihood programs such as skills training, agricultural support, and business grants to help affected residents transition smoothly.
Governor Alex Otti has earned a reputation as a progressive leader who listens to the people. His administration has the opportunity to set an example by ensuring that development projects are executed with a human face. The affected communities are not opposed to growth and modernization, but they deserve a seat at the table to discuss the future of their ancestral land. If the government scales down the project to an airstrip, signs a transparent MOU, and implements proper engagement strategies, everyone, both the government and the people, will benefit.
However, if the government insists on the current approach, it risks triggering disruptive innovation, one that displaces an entire population in the name of development. It is crucial to strike a balance between progress and preservation to avoid creating more problems than solutions.
*Uche is a Certified Management Consultant (CMC), Fellow of the Certified Institute of Management Consultants (FIMC), and a doctoral candidate.
