




































In ternationa l
Scholars
Journa ls

 

African Journal of Environmental Economics and Management ISSN 2375-0707 Vol. 8 (1), pp. 001-008, 
January, 2020. Available online at www.internationalscholarsjournals.org © International Scholars Journals 

 

Author(s) retain the copyright of this article. 
 
 

 

Full Length Research Paper 
  

The socio-economic impact of the Lake Chad 
resettlement scheme, Nigeria 

 
E. D. Oruonye 

 
Department of Geography, Taraba State University, P. M. B. 1167, Jalingo, Taraba State, Nigeria. 

E-mail: emmyodan@yahoo.uk. Tel: 07039271480, 08025250182. 
 

Accepted 21 October, 2019 
 
This study was undertaken with the objective of assessing the socio-economic impacts that have taken place since 
the arrival of different batches of settlers following the resettlement scheme. These impacts include damages exerted 
on the natural environment, accessibility to sites, provision of infrastructural facilities and the overall success/failure 
of the resettlement programme. The study employed descriptive survey method including both quantitative and 
qualitative data collecting instruments. The checklist method of impact assessment was employed in this study. The 
high number of people who indicated that they did not observed any socio-economic impact of the resettlement 
scheme on the environment is a reflection of the low level of awareness of the people about environmental impacts 
of such projects. This study recommends the implementation of existing framework of SEIA in order to ensure that 
local people and other interests are effectively represented in the process of resettlement scheme. 

 

Key words: Lake Chad, impact assessment, socio-economic, scheme and resettlement. 

 
INTRODUCTION 

 
The prolonged drought in the Sudan Sahelian zone of 
West Africa has resulted in the proliferation of permanent, 
semi-permanent and mobile settlements all over the 
floors of Lake Chad (Ijere, 1997). Increasing aridity has 
also resulted in herders of different nationalities moving to 
the Lake floor in the dry season for pasture and water. 
Migration to these areas has brought about interaction of 
people of different nationalities resulting in conflicts. 
Conflict resulting from scramble over diminishing fishing 
grounds and emerging farmlands are now commonplace. 
The Nigerian - Chad war of 1983 and current dispute over 
territory in the Lake area between Nigeria and Chad and 
between Nigeria and Cameroon are all fallouts from the 
drying up of the Lake. The current dispute between 
Nigeria and Cameroon led to the intervention of the 
International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 2002. The 
International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling on the boundary 
dispute between Nigeria and Cameroon led to the ceding 
of 33 villages to Cameroon in the Lake Chad region 
(Omipidan, 2005; Bolori, 2005)  

The decision of the Federal Government to resettle 
returnees affected by the International Court of Justice 
(ICJ) rulings on the boundary dispute between Nigeria 
and Cameroon in some selected communities along the 

 
 
 

 
Lake Chad area, (fragile environment) is bound to have a 
lasting impact on the environment (physically and socio-
economically). This study examines the socio-economic 
impact of the resettlement scheme on the fragile 
environment of the Lake Chad area of Nigeria.  

The concept of socio-economic impact studies provides 
a general framework for the assessment of a deve-
lopment project in order to determine its likely ecological 
and socio-economic consequences and also determine 
any possible alternative (Ibrahim, 1997). Socio-economic 
impact involves analysis of potential impacts of new 
projects on local communities and wider society, and the 
development of strategies to manage these impacts. 
Socio-economic impact studies can be carried out as a 
separate study, but often delivered through an integrated 
environmental and socio-economic impact studies. Socio-
economic impact assessments are usually carried out to 
assist policy makers in making decisions that promote 
long-term sustainability, including economic prosperity, a 
healthy community, and social well-being. A socio-
economic impact examines how a proposed development 
will change the lives of current and future residents of a 
community. Because socio-economic impact is designed 
to estimate the effects of a proposed development on a 



  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
Figure 1. Map of Lake Chad Basin showing resettlement area. 

 

 

community’s social and economic welfare, the process 
should rely heavily on involving community members who 
may be affected by the development. Socio-economic 
impact provides a foundation for assessing the cumu-
lative impacts of a development on community’s social 
and economic resources. Unfortunately, socio-economic 
impact often takes a back seat to other types of impact 
assessment such as fiscal and environmental impact 
analysis because the impacts are often more difficult to 
measure, and the social impacts associated with a 
development are generally more subtle than impacts on a 
community’s fiscal balance sheet or local natural 
resources (Burdge, 1995). This paper examines the 
socio-economic impact of the resettlement programme 
and project construction on the immediate environment. 
Specifically, the study investigates how the people living 
in the host communities and the resettlers perceive the 

 
 

 

socio-economic impact of the resettlement scheme on the 
immediate environment. The distribution of the 
resettlement sites are as follows: Dambore and 
Sagir/Kirta in Ngala LGA and Ali Sherifti in Kukawa LGA, 
both in Borno State of Nigeria (Figure 1). 
 
 
MATERIALS AND METHODS 
 
The effect of large regional project such as the Lake Chad 
resettlement scheme deserves environmental impact assessment 
(EIA) yet this was not done either before or during the resettlement 
process. Consequently, there is no previous EIA with which 
thisstudy being carried out about 5 years after the completion of 
theproject can be compared with. Since there were no EIA before or 
during the resettlement process, the views of the people currently 
living in the resettlement areas were obtained using questionnaires 
and interview schedule.  

The  checklist method of impact assessment was used in 



  
 
 

 
examining some of the changes that the resettlement scheme has 
made and will still make in the future on the resettlement areas. 
First, an exhaustive checklist of impacts that such project 
(resettlement scheme) can have on land and water resources as 
well as the checklist impacts that the projects or the exercise can 
have on human life and welfare was compiled. After developing the 
items in the checklist, they were carefully examined and a manage-
able number of important impacts were selected for detailed study. 
The rest of the impacts which could not be measured given our 
disposition, such as air and noise pollution were discarded, 
although, their impact could be measured indirectly through the 
views of the respondents living in the communities. Judicious 
scoping enabled us to limit both the number of impacts, and the 
depth to which the impact was studied. After the corrections, the 
following major categories or topics were selected for the checklist 
of possible impacts of the resettlement scheme on the immediate 
environment. Each category contains a number of relevant items. 
They are: 

 
1. Socio-economic impact of the resettlement on land and water 
resources (9 items).  
2. Services provided by the resettlement scheme’s projects (6 
items)  
3. Socio-economic impact of the resettlement projects uses on the 
environment (6 items).  
4. Infrastructural facilities attracted to the communities by the 
resettlement scheme (9 items). 

 
This checklist designed on a 5- point response continuum scale 
was based on the Likert scale after modification by Okoye (1996) as 
cited in Onokala (1997). Strong positive impacts are coded 5, 
positive impact is coded 4, while no impact observed, negative 
impact observed and strong negative impacts are coded 3, 2 and 1, 
respectively. The quantification of the impacts enabled the 
determination of the degree to which each item contributes to the 
impacts of the resettlement scheme on the environment.  

The resettlement areas include Sagir and Dambore in Ngala 
Local Government Area and Ali Sheriffti in Kukawa Local 
Government Area, both in Borno State. Sixty-five questionnaires 
were administered in each of the three resettlement communities 
previously mentioned and forty four questionnaires in Kirta village 
(nearby village hosting the returnees). In all, 239 questionnaires 
were administered in the study areas. The administration of the 
questionnaires was randomly done to ensure that every adult has 
equal chance of being selected (Ibe and Oruonye, 1999). The 
Pearson’s product moment correlation coefficient was used to 
analyze the relationship between the 4 categories of socio-
economic impact of the resettlement scheme on the environment. 
Principal component analysis (PCA) was later applied to the data to 
determine the loading of each of the variable on the component. 
Tables were used in presentation of results. 
 

 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 

 

The study examines the scores of the respondent on the 
socio-economic impact of the resettlement scheme 
project on the environment. These socio-economic 
impacts are in four categories, namely; 
 

 

Category A 

 
Socio-economic impact of the resettlement scheme on 
land and water resources is: 

 
 
 
 

 

1. Socio-economic impact on depletion of land for other 
uses (A1).  
2. Socio-economic impact on damage to agricultural land 
(A2). 
3. Socio-economic   impact   on   damage   to   existing 
properties such as houses (A3).  
4. Socio-economic impact on damage to economic trees 
(A4). 
5. Socio-economic impact on destruction of hamlets (A5).  
6. Socio-economic impact on migration of communities 
(A6).  
7. Socio-economic impact on destruction of existing 
roads (A7).  
8. Socio-economic impact on pollution of sources of 
drinking water (A8).  
9. Socio-economic impact on access to sources of 
drinking water (A9). 
 

 

Category B 

 
Services provided by the resettlement scheme’s projects 
(6 items) 
 

1. Medical services (B1). 
2. Education service (provision of teachers) (B2). 
3. Extension services (B3). 
4. Security services (B4)  
5. Increase in volume of trading in the affected areas 
(B5). 
6. Increase in volume of traffic (transportation) (B6). 
 

 

Category C 

 
Socio-economic impact of the resettlement projects uses 
on the environment (6 items) are: 

 
1. Solid waste generation in the affected areas, as a 
result of the project (C1).  
2. Litter generation by workers and users of the project 
facilities (C2).  
3. Air pollution (C3). 
4. Noise pollution (C4). 
5. Water coloration (C5) 
6. Vegetation exploitation for fuel wood uses (C6). 
 

 

Category D 

 
Facilities attracted to the communities by the resettlement 
scheme (9 items). 
 

1. Provision of health facilities (D1). 
2. Provision of educational facilities (D2). 
3. Provision of marketing facilities (D3). 
4. Provision of security (D4). 
5. Provision of agricultural development facilities (D5). 



 
 
 

 
Table 1. Average percentage of response option.  

 
 

Category 
A (Strong B (Positive C (No impact D (Negative E (Strong negative 

 

 
positive impact) impact) observed) impact observed) impact  observed)  

  
 

 Factors      
 

 Resource-I 0.1 10.5 49.7 18.1 21.6 
 

 Service -  II 2.8 96.7 0.5 0.0 0.0 
 

 Use  - III 0.0 0.0 50.0 2.4 47.6 
 

 Facilities-IV 8.3 69.5 21.0 1.2 0.0 
 

 
Source: Fieldwork 2006. 

 

 
Table 2. Pearson correlation coefficient of the four factors.  

 
 Factors Q1-resource Q2- service Q3- uses 

 Q2- service 0.0693 - - 

 Q3- uses 0.8990 -0.3340 - 

 Q4- facilities 0.0203 -0.9167 0.4556 
 

Source: Statistic result. 
 
 
 
6. Provision of housing (D6). 
7. Provision of water supply (D7). 
8. Provision of transport network (D8). 
9. Provision of mass literacy facilities (D9). 

 

The average scores of each respondent/case on the 5-
point response scale was computed for each category on 
the checklist, this average score was then entered in the 
appropriate column of the response option (and is 
presented in Table 1).  

The socio-economic impact of the resettlement scheme 
on land and natural resources (Category A = 
RESOURCE) and the socio-economic impact of the 
resettlement project use on the environment (Category C  
= USE) have majority of the respondents under no impact 
observed, negative impact or strong negative impacts. On 
the other hand, services provided by the resettlement 
scheme (Category B = SERVICE) and the facilities 
attracted to the resettlement areas (Category D = 
FACILITIES) have majority of the respondents under 
positive, strong positive and no impact observed. Under 
category A, 39.7% of the respondents indicated that the 
impact of the resettlement scheme on the land and 
natural resources are either negative (18.1%) or strongly 
negative (21.6%) while 49.7% of the respondents 
indicated that no impact was observed. Under category 
B, 2.8% indicated strong positive impact while the 
remaining 96.7% indicated strong positive impact and 
0.5% are for no impact observed with nothing under the 
other columns. Under category C, 50% of the respon-
dents could not determine the impact of the resettlement 
project use on the environment while 50% of the 
respondents indicated that the impact of the resettlement 
project use is either negative (2.4%) or strongly negative 
(47.6%). Category D indicates that facilities attracted to 

 
 

 

the resettlement areas show positive impact (69.5%) or 
strongly positive impact (8.3%) and no impact observed 
(21%) and negative impact observed (1.2%).  

After calculating the Pearson’s product moment 
correlation coefficients between the 4 categories of socio-
economic impact of the resettlement scheme on the 
environment (Table 2), principal component analysis 
(PCA) was also applied to the data and the results of this 
analysis are presented in Table 3.  

The result of the correlation of these four categories is 
shown in Table 2. The result shows that there is a very 
weak relationship between category B (SERVICE) and 
category A (RESOURCE), r = 0.0693. There is a strong 
positive relationship between category A (RESOURCE) 
and category C (USE), r = 0.8990, a weak negative rela-
tionship between category B (SERVICE) and category C 
(USE), r = -0.3340. The result also shows that there is a  
very weak relationship between category A 
(RESOURCE) and category D (FACILITIES), r = 0.0203. 
The relationship between category B (SERVICE) and 
category D (FACILITIES) is strong negative, r = -0.9167. 
The relationship between category C (USE) and category 
D (FACILITIES) is weak, r = 0.4556. Hence categories A 
and C (RESOURCE and USE) are grouped as factor I, 
while categories B and D (SERVICE and FACILITIES) 
are grouped as factor II. Table 3 shows the principal 
component analysis (PCA) of the socioeconomic impact 
of the resettlement scheme on the immediate environ-
ment and indicates that there are three major factors, 
which altogether explains 100% of the variation.  

Factor 1, which loads highly on category A 
(RESOURCE) and category C (USES) explain 60% of the 
variation. The component-defining variable is category A 
(RESOURCE) and it has the highest loading of 58% on 
this factor. These two categories had 49.7% for A and 
50% for C under the impact could not be deter-mined 
column of Table 1. Therefore, factor 1 indicates that the 
socio-economic impact of the resettlement scheme and 
project use on the environment could not be determined 
by majority of the respondents most of whom are 
returnees who were resettled in the areas (Plates 2 and 
3). Factor II that loads highly on category B (SERVICE) 
and category D (FACILITIES) explains 40% of the 
variation, the component defining variable is category B 
(SERVICE) which has the absolute loading of 



 
 
 

 
Table 3. Result of the principal component analysis.  

 
 Factor Eigen values Percentage of variance Cumulative percentage of variance 

 1 2.32319 58.1 58.1 

 2 1.59431 39.9 97.9 

 3 0.08235 2.1 100.0 

 4 1.441E-04 0.0 100.0 
 

Source: Statistic result.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
Plate 1. Nature of Ali Sheriffti before the resettlement scheme. 

 

 

39.9% on this factor. The pattern of distribution of these 
scores on the 5-point Likert scale, show that majority of 
the respondents are convinced of the obvious 
advantages of the services provided by the resettlement 
scheme (SERVICE) and the facilities attracted to the 
resettlement areas (FACILITIES). Therefore, factor II 
reflect the socio-economic benefit and factor I, the socio-
economic cost of the resettlement scheme on the 
immediate environment.  

These results of the analysis are further discussed 
following the socio-economic impact of the resettlement 
scheme on land and water resources in (Category A = 
RESOURCES) and the socio-economic impact of the 
infrastructural project use on the environment (Category 
C = USE) have negative impacts. On the other hand, 
services provided by the resettlement scheme (B = 
SERVICE) and the facilities attracted to the resettlement 
sites (D = FACILITIES) have majority of the respondents 
under the strong positive impact or positive impact. The 

 
 

 

implications of these are now discussed in details starting 
with the negative impact.  

Under category A = RESOURCES, one item access to 
source of drinking water (A9) has the highest mean value 
of 3.7 (Table 4). This is explained by the fact that 
resettlement exercise involves the drilling of boreholes 
and cement wells to supply water to the people (Plate 1) 
and as such they see the resettlement as having a 
positive impact on the environment rather than negative. 
This is followed by the pollution of source of drinking 
water (A8), destruction of hamlet (A5), damage to econo-
mic trees (A4) and damage to existing properties such as 
house (A3), which have mean values of 2.97,  
2.96 and 2.91 respectively, showing no impact observed. 

Destruction of existing access roads and footpaths  
(A7), effects on migration (A6), depletion of land for other 
uses (A1) and damage to agricultural land (A2) all have 
negative impacts or strong negative impacts (mean 
values between 2.3, 2.143 and 1.143). The people 



    
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Plate 2. Dambore Resettlement Camp.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Plate 3. Ali sheriffti camp showing planted trees. 
 

 

believed that the resettlement exercise have had nega-
tive impact on migration because many of the returnees 
could not cope with the situation on ground and as such 
have to migrate in search of better fishing grounds or 
farming areas. They also believed that the resettlement 
exercise have strong negative impact on damage to 

 
 

 

agricultural lands and depletion of land for other uses 
because many of them lost their land to the construction 
work and others (especially the returnees) could not even 
have access to land to build house or cultivate.  

Under category C = USE, most of the respondents 
(50%) could not observe the socio-economic impact of 



 
 
 

 
Table 4. Mean distribution of respondent response.  

 
 Category Impact type Mean of respondent response 

 Resources - A A (1) 1.14 

  A (2) 1.14 

  A (3) 2.91 

  A (4) 2.91 

  A (5) 2.96 

  A (6) 2.14 

  A (7) 2.30 

  A (8) 2.97 

  A (9) 3.70 

 Services - B B (1) 4.50 

  B (2) 4.81 

  B (3) 3.99 

  B (4) 3.80 

  B (5) 3.90 

  B (6) 3.43 

 Project uses - C C (1) 1.04 

  C (2) 1.11 

  C (3) 2.99 

  C (4) 3.0 

  C (5) 2.99 

  C (6) 2.99 

 Facilities – (D) D (1) 5.00 

  D (2) 4.68 

  D (3) 4.38 

  D (4) 3.36 

  D (5) 2.98 

  D (6) 3.28 

  D (7) 4.89 

  D (8) 3.43 

  D (9) 4.36 
 

 

the resettlement scheme project use on the environment 
and for all the items on this category positive impact is 
non existent. Evidence of noise pollution (C4), water 
pollution (coloration) (C5) and air pollution (C3) from the 
projects with means of 3.0 and 2.986 show strong 
emphasis on no impact observed which reflect the non-
existence of pollution resulting from the resettlement 
scheme.  

Solid wastes from the various projects (C1), litter from 
workers and users of the projects (C2) and pressure on 
vegetation (C6) with the least means of 1.043, 1.114 and 
1.0, show strong negative impacts on the environment. 
Therefore the mean value of 2.024 (with a standard 
deviation of 1.0649 and variance of 1.1339) places the 
socio-economic impact of the resettlement scheme 
project use on the environment (Category C = USE) as 
negative. 

 

 

Services provided by the resettlement scheme 
(Category B = SERVICE) is seen as positive by over 96% 
of the respondent and strongly positive by 3.4% and no 
impact observed by 0.5% of the remaining respondents. It 
has no score at all on the two other columns. All the items 
each have a mean value of 3.986 to 4.114. Therefore all 
the respondents acknowledge the over-whelming positive 
impact of the services provided by the resettlement 
scheme (medical services, adequacy of teachers, 
extension services, security services, increase in volume 
of trading in the affected areas, transport service). 
 

Facilities attracted to the resettlement areas (Category 
D = FACILITIES) also indicate fairly positive impact on 
the environment. The mean value for all the items in this 
category ranges from 2.87 to 4.57. The strong positive 
impact (8.25%) and positive impact (69.5%) are 



 
 
 

 

explained by the fact that all the respondents could easily 
experience or observe this. Generally, the resettlement 
scheme attracted many facilities, which are by far, better 
than some of the ones in the Local Government 
headquarter (especially the well equipped modern health 
centers). Others include a modern primary and secondary 
schools with standard classrooms, hostels and staff 
quarters, an agricultural development center, boreholes 
with overhead tanks, viewing centers, police outpost and 
Immigration office with quarters. 
 

 

Conclusion 

 

This study has investigated the socio-economic impact of 
the resettlement scheme project construction and its uses 
on the immediate environment. The study shows that 
very little attention has been devoted to the degree of 
involvement and participation of the returnees and the 
host communities compared with the comparative focus 
upon physical infrastructures. The findings from the study 
also show that even though infrastructures such as 
schools, health centres, market stores, viewing centres 
and boreholes were provided in each of the resettlement 
sites, they were not the immediate needs of the resettled 
people. The resettled people would have preferred a 
canal on the Lake Chad to enhance their means of liveli-
hood and transportation, shelter to accommodate them 
and land for farming. The resettlement therefore has 
increased pressure on the already fragile environment of 
the Lake Chad region. Thus, contrary to the expected 
benefits, enhanced income, higher standard of living, 
increased employment opportunities through general 
enhancement of farmers and fishermen’s welfare by way 
of government support, most of the returnees have 
experienced the worst hardships in their life resulting from 
poor land fertility, displacement, deception and land 
deprivation. 
 

 

RECOMMENDATION 

 

This study recommends the need to implement existing 

 
 

 
 

 

framework of SEIA in order to ensure that local and other 
interests are effectively represented in the process. Also 
there should be a monitoring body which could oversee 
the conduct of SEIAs and or a special environmental 
tribunal which could have as part of its Jurisdiction, the 
power to investigate and review governmental environ-
mental decision on proposed projects. There is need for 
an SEIA framework which incorporates a defined role for 
the members of the public, so that their views and 
opinions are considered by the decision making agency 
and further strengthened by the provision of a monitoring 
body or tribunal. 
 

 
REFERENCES 
 
Bolori S (2005). Aspects of the Political Challenges of the Lake Chad 

Basin Commission. AL-MAHRAM J. Trans-Saharan Studies. 
1&2(1):29-49. 

Burdge RJ (1995). A Community Guide to Social Impact Assessment. 
University of Illinois: Urbana. p. 235.  

Ibe BA, Oruonye ED (1999). Effectiveness of the Agricultural 
Development Programme (ADP) on the quality of life of the people in 
the rural areas. Sahel Analyst. 4(1):47-59.  

Ibrahim A (1997). Law and Policy for Environmental Protection and 
Sustainable development in Nigeria with special reference to Water 
Resource Development Project. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, 
Department of Law, University of London.  

Ijere JA (1997). Man-water relationships: The case of Lake Chad. pp. 
191-198. In. Daura,M.M. (1997)(ed.) Issues in Environmental 
Monitoring in Nigeria. Nigerian Geographical Assoc. Maiduguri.  

Okoye RO (1996). Psychometric Properties of Likert Type Attitude 
Scale Under Varying Positions and Score Values of Neutral 
Response. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Education, 
University of Nigeria, Nsukka.  

Omipidan I (2005) Echoes of Lake Chad ceding. Daily Sun Newspaper 

(Lagos, Nigeria), 9
th

 Feb., p.16.  
Onokala PC (1997). Impact of the Enugu-Onitsha express way in 

southeastern Nigeria on the socio-economic aspects of its immediate 
environment. In Daura M.M. (Ed.) Issues in Environmental Monitoring 
in Nigeria. Nigerian Geographical Association, pp. 203-209. 


