EFFECTS OF ACTIVITIES OF LAND SPECULATORS ON WOMEN FARMERS CROP OUTPUT AND INCOME IN KUJE AREA COUNCIL FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY (FCT), ABUJA, NIGERIA

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

Land constitutes the most fundamental productive asset for rural households in Nigeria, serving not only as the physical basis for agricultural production but also as a store of wealth, a source of social status, and a collateral asset for accessing credit. For the estimated 70-80% of rural households that depend on agriculture for their primary livelihood, secure access to land of adequate quality and quantity is a necessary condition for sustainable poverty reduction, food security, and economic empowerment (Olayide and Alabi, 2018). In recent decades, however, the Nigerian rural land market has undergone profound transformation driven by rapid urbanization, population growth, commercialization of agriculture, and, most significantly for this study, the emergence of land speculation as a powerful force reshaping land access and tenure relations. This transformation has particularly adverse implications for women farmers, who already face systematic disadvantages in land access compared to men (Adekunle and Ogunlade, 2019). (Olayide and Alabi, 2018; Adekunle and Ogunlade, 2019)

Land speculation—the practice of acquiring land not for productive use but for resale at a higher price in the expectation of future price appreciation—has become increasingly prevalent in peri-urban areas of Nigeria, including the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). Speculators, ranging from wealthy individuals and real estate developers to retired civil servants and diaspora investors, purchase agricultural land in anticipation of urban expansion, infrastructure development, or conversion to residential or commercial use (Nwaka, 2020). This speculative demand drives up land prices, often far beyond the productive value of the land for agriculture, and creates strong incentives for landowners to withhold land from agricultural use or to evict existing farmers in favor of future development. The activities of land speculators thus generate significant negative externalities for active agricultural producers, particularly smallholder farmers who lack the resources to compete in speculative land markets (Jiboye and Ogunshakin, 2019). (Nwaka, 2020; Jiboye and Ogunshakin, 2019)

The Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, presents a particularly intense context for land speculation dynamics due to its unique status as Nigeria’s political capital and the site of massive ongoing urban development. Since the designation of Abuja as the FCT in 1976 and the subsequent relocation of the federal capital from Lagos in 1991, the territory has experienced explosive population growth (from less than 300,000 in 1980 to over 3 million currently) and extensive infrastructure development (roads, airports, government complexes, residential estates). This growth has created enormous demand for land for residential, commercial, and institutional purposes, generating strong speculative pressures on agricultural land throughout the six Area Councils of the FCT, including Kuje Area Council (FCT Department of Lands and Survey, 2020). Land prices in peri-urban areas of the FCT have appreciated by 500-1,000% or more over the past two decades, far exceeding any plausible increase in agricultural productivity or land value in productive use (Nkwogu and Okafor, 2019). (FCT Department of Lands and Survey, 2020; Nkwogu and Okafor, 2019)

Kuje Area Council, located approximately 40 kilometers southwest of Abuja city center, represents a peri-urban agricultural area experiencing intense land speculation pressures. Originally one of the predominantly rural Area Councils of the FCT, Kuje has increasingly come under development pressure as Abuja expands outward and as infrastructure improvements (particularly the Abuja-Lokoja highway and the Outer Southern Expressway) have reduced commuting times to the city center (Kuje Area Council, 2020). The Area Council contains substantial tracts of agricultural land suitable for rain-fed and, in some areas, irrigated crop production, making it an important source of fresh produce for the Abuja market. However, much of this agricultural land is now held by speculators who have purchased it from original landowners (often under customary tenure) and are holding it for future development, rather than cultivating it themselves or leasing it to farmers (Olaniyi and Ajayi, 2018). (Kuje Area Council, 2020; Olaniyi and Ajayi, 2018)

Women farmers constitute a particularly vulnerable group in the context of land speculation due to the intersection of gender inequalities in land rights, resource access, and decision-making power. Under customary tenure systems that remain prevalent in the FCT (predominantly Gbagyi and other indigenous groups), women’s land rights are typically derivative—they access land through male relatives (husbands, fathers, brothers) rather than holding land in their own names (Eze and Nwosu, 2019). This derivative status means that when land is sold to speculators, women may not be party to the transaction, may not receive compensation, and may have no legal standing to challenge eviction. Even where women have independent rights to land (e.g., through inheritance or purchase), they often have less information about land markets, less capacity to resist pressure from speculators, and less access to legal recourse than men (Ogunwale and Adebayo, 2020). (Eze and Nwosu, 2019; Ogunwale and Adebayo, 2020)

The specific mechanisms through which land speculators affect women farmers’ access to land and their agricultural production outcomes are multiple and often operate sequentially. First, speculators’ demand for land drives up land prices, making it more expensive for women farmers (who typically have lower incomes and fewer assets than men) to purchase land for farming. Second, landowners anticipating speculative sales become reluctant to grant long-term leases or tenancy agreements to women farmers, instead offering only short-term, insecure arrangements that discourage investment in land improvements. Third, speculators may purchase land that is currently being farmed by women, then evict the women (with minimal or no compensation) to hold the land vacant pending future development. Fourth, the presence of speculative holdings—land held idle by speculators—reduces the total land area available for agriculture, creating scarcity that drives up rental prices and reduces affordability for women (Adamu and Ibrahim, 2019). (Adamu and Ibrahim, 2019)

The conversion of agricultural land to speculative holdings also affects women farmers through less direct, more systemic channels. As speculation drives up land prices and expected returns from landholding (through appreciation) exceed expected returns from farming, the opportunity cost of leaving land in agriculture increases. Landowners who might otherwise have leased land to women farmers may instead hold land vacant or convert it to non-agricultural uses (gravel extraction, storage, etc.). The resulting reduction in agricultural land supply, combined with continued demand for agricultural products from the growing Abuja population, creates upward pressure on land rents and downward pressure on women farmers’ net incomes (Usman and Bello, 2020). Furthermore, the uncertainty created by speculative pressures—the knowledge that land may be sold or developed at any time—discourages investment in long-term productivity-enhancing practices (soil conservation, perennial crops, irrigation infrastructure), limiting women’s ability to increase their output and income over time (Nkwogu and Okafor, 2019). (Usman and Bello, 2020; Nkwogu and Okafor, 2019)

Crop output—the quantity of agricultural produce harvested per unit area or per farm—represents the primary livelihood outcome directly affected by land speculation. When women farmers lose access to land due to speculative purchases, their cultivated area declines, reducing total output even if yields per hectare remain constant. When women farmers are forced onto more marginal lands (less fertile, more distant from water sources, steeper slopes) due to displacement from better-quality agricultural land, yields per hectare may also decline. When women farmers cannot invest in land improvements (terracing, drainage, manure application) due to tenure insecurity, yields may stagnate or decline over time. Conversely, women farmers who maintain access to land may still experience output losses if the fragmentation of agricultural land (as speculators purchase and hold parcels) increases travel time between fields, reduces efficiency, and increases production costs (Adebayo and Adeola, 2019). (Adebayo and Adeola, 2019)

Income—the net monetary return from crop production after deducting input costs—represents the primary economic welfare outcome affected by land speculation, with cascading effects on food security, household expenditure, savings, asset accumulation, and children’s education. Land speculation affects women farmers’ income through multiple channels: reduced output (as described above) directly reduces revenue; increased land rental costs (if women must rent land on short-term leases at higher prices) increase production costs; increased competition for remaining agricultural land may force women to accept unfavorable lease terms; and the uncertainty generated by speculative pressures may lead women to choose lower-risk, lower-return cropping patterns (e.g., less fertilizer use, shifting to less profitable but more secure crops) rather than profit-maximizing strategies (Olayide and Alabi, 2018). For women who are displaced from farming entirely, the income loss is total, and they must seek alternative livelihoods—often in the informal sector with lower and less stable earnings. (Olayide and Alabi, 2018)

The concept of land speculation must be distinguished from other forms of land market activity, including genuine agricultural investment and normal land transactions. Land speculation is characterized by: acquisition of land with the primary intent of resale for capital gain rather than productive use; holding land vacant or in very low-intensity use while waiting for price appreciation; and reliance on external developments (urban expansion, infrastructure projects) rather than own actions to generate value appreciation (Nwaka, 2020). In the FCT context, speculative activities take multiple forms: individuals or companies purchasing large tracts of land from customary owners at low prices; speculators obtaining land through allocation from Area Council authorities or the FCT administration, often through connections; and “land banking” where speculators accumulate land holdings over time in anticipation of future development. The distinction between speculation and legitimate land investment is sometimes blurred, but the effects on women farmers—displacement, reduced access, increased costs—are negative regardless of the speculator’s intentions (Jiboye and Ogunshakin, 2019). (Nwaka, 2020; Jiboye and Ogunshakin, 2019)

Women’s vulnerability to land speculation in Kuje Area Council is exacerbated by their limited access to information about land markets, land administration, and legal rights. Speculators typically operate with better information about planned infrastructure projects, zoning changes, and development approvals—information that is not publicly disseminated and that influences land purchase decisions. Women farmers may be unaware that the land they farm has been sold to a speculator until the speculator appears with a purchase deed and demands vacating; they may be unaware of their legal rights to compensation or alternative land; and they may lack the resources (financial, social, legal) to assert whatever rights they do have (Eze and Nwosu, 2019). Furthermore, the customary tenure systems that govern much of the land in Kuje may not provide clear procedures for notification, consent, or compensation when land is transferred from customary ownership to speculative holdings, leaving women farmers without any formal protection. (Eze and Nwosu, 2019)

The legal and regulatory framework governing land in the FCT is complex, involving multiple jurisdictions and sources of authority that create ambiguity and opportunities for speculators. The Land Use Act of 1978 vests all land in each state (and the FCT) in the Governor (or FCT Minister), who grants rights of occupancy; customary rights are recognized but are subject to the overriding authority of the Minister. In the FCT specifically, the Abuja Land Management Act and subsequent regulations create a system of land allocation, registration, and administration that has been criticized as opaque, prone to corruption, and biased toward powerful interests (FCT Department of Lands and Survey, 2020). Speculators navigate this system more effectively than poor women farmers, obtaining allocations, certificates of occupancy, and other documents that lend legitimacy to their claims. Women farmers, operating largely outside the formal land administration system, have little recourse when their informal use rights are overridden by formal documents obtained by speculators (Nkwogu and Okafor, 2019). (FCT Department of Lands and Survey, 2020; Nkwogu and Okafor, 2019)

The effects of land speculation on women farmers’ crop output and income are not uniform across all women farmers; rather, they are mediated by individual and household characteristics that influence vulnerability and adaptive capacity. Older women, widows, and divorced women may be particularly vulnerable because they may lack male relatives to advocate for their rights or to negotiate with speculators. Wealthier women farmers (those with off-farm income, savings, or assets) may be better able to rent alternative land, purchase land for themselves, or absorb the costs of displacement without catastrophic income loss. Women who are members of farmer cooperatives or women’s groups may have better access to information about land markets and collective bargaining power. Women farming on land owned by their husbands may be more vulnerable than those farming on land they own themselves (if they have independent ownership) because the husband may be the one negotiating with speculators and may not protect the wife’s interests (Ogunwale and Adebayo, 2020). Understanding this heterogeneity is essential for designing targeted interventions. (Ogunwale and Adebayo, 2020)

The response strategies employed by women farmers facing land speculation pressures also vary, with different implications for crop output and income. Some women may adapt within the agricultural sector: seeking alternative land to rent or purchase (if available and affordable), shifting to more land-efficient crops (vegetables, horticulture), intensifying production on reduced land area, or investing in soil fertility improvements to maintain yields on marginal lands. Others may exit agriculture partially or completely, seeking off-farm employment (petty trading, food processing, domestic work) or relying on remittances from migrant family members. Still others may resist displacement through collective action, legal challenge, or political advocacy—though success rates are low given the power imbalances involved (Adamu and Ibrahim, 2019). The effectiveness of different response strategies in preserving output and income, and the determinants of which strategy a woman adopts, have not been systematically studied in the Kuje context. (Adamu and Ibrahim, 2019)

Previous research on land speculation in Nigeria has focused primarily on urban and peri-urban residential land markets, with relatively little attention to the effects on agricultural producers and even less attention to the gendered dimensions of those effects. Studies in Lagos, Ibadan, Kano, and Port Harcourt have documented the rapid appreciation of urban land prices, the role of speculators in driving price increases, and the displacement of low-income residents from urban and peri-urban areas (Nwaka, 2020). Studies in the FCT have examined land allocation processes, corruption in land administration, and the effects of the Abuja Master Plan on land use patterns. However, the specific effects of land speculation on women farmers’ agricultural output and income—as distinct from general displacement effects—have not been systematically quantified. Similarly, the mechanisms through which speculation affects women’s farming (land loss, increased rents, tenure insecurity, reduced investment) have been described qualitatively but not empirically estimated (Jiboye and Ogunshakin, 2019). (Nwaka, 2020; Jiboye and Ogunshakin, 2019)

The conceptual framework for this study draws on several theoretical traditions. Political economy perspectives on land grabs and land alienation analyze how powerful actors (speculators, developers, politicians) acquire land from less powerful groups (smallholder farmers, women, indigenous communities) through processes that are often opaque, coercive, and legitimated by state authority (Borras and Franco, 2020). Feminist political ecology perspectives highlight how gender relations mediate access to and control over land and natural resources, and how environmental and economic changes—including land speculation—produce gendered outcomes that systematically disadvantage women (Rocheleau et al., 2019). Agricultural household economics provides tools for modeling how changes in land access and tenure security affect production decisions, input use, output, and income, with attention to risk and uncertainty. The empirical model derived from this framework specifies women farmers’ crop output and income as functions of land access variables (area cultivated, tenure security, land quality, rental costs), household characteristics, and exposure to speculative activities (whether the farmer has been displaced, whether land is held by speculators, whether rental prices have increased). (Borras and Franco, 2020; Rocheleau et al., 2019)

The Kuje Area Council context presents an opportunity to study land speculation effects in a setting that is representative of many peri-urban agricultural areas in Nigeria, yet with distinctive features that merit focused research attention. Kuje has experienced rapid population growth and development pressure, but it has also retained significant agricultural land and a substantial farming population. The Area Council has a mix of indigenous Gbagyi farmers, migrants from other parts of Nigeria who have purchased or rented land, and speculators who hold land for future development. The proximity to Abuja provides a strong market for agricultural produce, but also exposes farmers to intense competition for land from urban buyers. The FCT land administration system, with its unique legal framework and political dynamics, shapes the opportunities and constraints for both speculators and women farmers (Kuje Area Council, 2020). These features make Kuje an appropriate and informative site for this study. (Kuje Area Council, 2020)

In summary, the activities of land speculators in Kuje Area Council, FCT, Abuja, represent a significant but under-researched threat to the livelihoods of women farmers. Speculative demand for land drives up land prices, reduces agricultural land availability, creates tenure insecurity, and displaces women farmers from land they have cultivated. These effects are likely to reduce women’s crop output and income, with negative consequences for household welfare, food security, and women’s economic empowerment. However, the magnitude of these effects, the mechanisms through which they operate, the heterogeneity across different groups of women farmers, and the strategies women employ to cope with speculation pressures have not been systematically investigated. This study therefore seeks to fill this gap by quantifying the effects of land speculator activities on women farmers’ crop output and income in Kuje Area Council, generating evidence to inform land policy, women’s land rights advocacy, and interventions to support affected women farmers (Eze and Nwosu, 2021; Olaniyi and Ajayi, 2021). (Eze and Nwosu, 2021; Olaniyi and Ajayi, 2021)

1.2 Statement of the Problems

Kuje Area Council, despite its designation as part of the Federal Capital Territory and its proximity to Abuja, remains an important agricultural area where crop production provides the primary livelihood for a majority of rural households. Women constitute a substantial proportion of the agricultural labor force in Kuje, engaged in all stages of crop production from land preparation and planting to weeding, harvesting, and marketing. However, women farmers in Kuje face increasing difficulty accessing and maintaining secure access to agricultural land due to the activities of land speculators who purchase land not for farming but for future development, effectively removing land from agricultural use and displacing existing farmers (Kuje Area Council, 2020). This problem is intensifying as Abuja expands outward and as infrastructure improvements increase the attractiveness of Kuje land for speculative investment.

Preliminary evidence suggests that land speculation has significantly reduced the agricultural land available for women farmers in Kuje, increased the cost of renting land, and created pervasive tenure insecurity that discourages investment in productivity-enhancing practices. Women farmers report being evicted from land they had cultivated for years when speculators purchase the land, receiving minimal or no compensation, and being unable to find alternative land of comparable quality and accessibility. Others report that land rental prices have increased by 100-300% over the past five years, driven by speculative demand and reduced land supply, making it unaffordable for women with limited cash resources (Adamu and Ibrahim, 2019). The cumulative effect of these pressures is likely to be reduced crop output and lower incomes for women farmers, with negative consequences for household food security, children’s education, and women’s economic well-being.

A first specific problem is the absence of empirical data quantifying the extent of land speculation activity in Kuje Area Council and its direct effects on women farmers’ land access. While anecdotal reports and qualitative studies document the presence of speculators and the displacement of farmers, there are no systematic data on: the proportion of agricultural land in Kuje that is held by speculators (rather than active farmers); the rate at which agricultural land is being converted to speculative holdings; the number of women farmers who have lost land to speculators in recent years; or the amount of land lost per displaced household. Without such baseline data, the scale of the problem cannot be assessed, trends cannot be tracked, and policy responses cannot be appropriately scaled.

A second problem concerns the lack of quantitative estimation of the causal effect of land speculation on women farmers’ crop output. While it is plausible that land speculation reduces output through multiple channels (reduced cultivated area, lower yields due to forced relocation to marginal lands, reduced investment due to tenure insecurity), these effects have not been rigorously estimated. The magnitude of output losses—how many tons of crops are foregone per hectare of land converted to speculative holding, per woman farmer displaced, per year—is unknown. This knowledge gap means that policymakers cannot calculate the opportunity cost of allowing speculation to proceed unchecked, nor can they compare the benefits of speculative land conversion (potential future development) against the costs (immediate agricultural output losses, long-term livelihood disruption) (Olayide and Alabi, 2018).

A third problem concerns the lack of quantitative estimation of the effect of land speculation on women farmers’ income. Even if output effects were known, translating them into income effects requires knowledge of crop prices, input costs, and the extent to which output losses translate into revenue losses (versus substitution of different crops or adjustment of input use). Furthermore, speculation may affect income through channels other than output: increased land rental costs directly reduce net income for women who rent land; displacement may force women into less profitable cropping patterns or off-farm activities with lower earnings; and tenure insecurity may lead women to avoid long-term investments (fruit trees, perennial crops, soil conservation structures) that would increase income in future years (Adebayo and Adeola, 2019). None of these income effects have been quantified for Kuje women farmers.

A fourth problem concerns the identification of the specific mechanisms through which land speculation affects women’s crop output and income. Is the primary mechanism displacement (loss of land entirely), or is it intensification of pressure on remaining land (reduced area per farmer, increased rental costs, shorter lease durations)? Is the effect concentrated on particular types of women farmers (e.g., those without formal land rights, those farming on rented land rather than owned land), or does it affect all women farmers through general equilibrium effects (higher land prices, reduced supply)? Do speculators’ activities affect output and income primarily through quantity channels (less land cultivated) or through productivity channels (lower yields per hectare)? Without disaggregating mechanisms, policy responses cannot be appropriately targeted (Adamu and Ibrahim, 2019).

A fifth problem concerns the heterogeneity of effects across different groups of women farmers. Women farmers in Kuje are not a homogeneous group: they differ in age, marital status, household position, land rights (owners vs. renters, those with documented vs. undocumented rights), access to off-farm income, membership in cooperatives, and social networks. It is likely that the effects of land speculation differ across these groups: women with stronger land rights (e.g., those with certificates of occupancy or whose husbands protect their interests) may be less vulnerable to displacement; women with off-farm income may have resources to rent alternative land; and cooperative members may have access to information and collective bargaining. The current evidence base does not permit analysis of this heterogeneity, leading to one-size-fits-all policy recommendations that may not address the needs of the most vulnerable women (Eze and Nwosu, 2019).

A sixth problem concerns the response strategies that women farmers employ in the face of land speculation pressures, and the effectiveness of these strategies in preserving output and income. Some women may seek alternative land to rent; others may shift to more intensive cultivation on reduced area; others may exit agriculture for off-farm employment; others may engage in collective resistance or legal action. The determinants of which strategy a woman adopts—and the average effects of different strategies on subsequent output and income—have not been studied. Without this evidence, interventions cannot support the most effective adaptation strategies or help women avoid strategies that lead to worse outcomes (Ogunwale and Adebayo, 2020).

A seventh problem concerns the relationship between land speculation and women farmers’ investment behavior. Tenure insecurity—the risk of eviction without compensation—is predicted by economic theory to reduce investment in land improvements with payback periods exceeding the expected tenure duration. Women farmers facing high risk of displacement may be reluctant to apply manure or fertilizer (whose benefits accrue over multiple seasons), plant perennial crops (fruit trees, palms), or invest in irrigation or drainage improvements. This reduced investment, in turn, reduces output and income even for women who maintain land access. The extent to which land speculation has reduced women’s investment in land improvements in Kuje, and the magnitude of the resulting output losses, have not been quantified (Olayide and Alabi, 2018).

An eighth problem concerns the relationship between land speculation and women’s broader livelihood portfolios. For many women farmers, crop production is not their only livelihood activity; they may also engage in small-scale trading, food processing, handicraft production, or casual labor. When land speculation reduces crop output and income, women may respond by increasing labor allocation to non-farm activities. This substitution has implications not captured by focusing solely on agricultural output: non-farm activities may provide lower or less stable incomes, may have different seasonal patterns, and may be less compatible with child care and domestic responsibilities. The effect of speculation on total household income (farm plus non-farm), and the trade-offs women make between farming and off-farm activities, have not been examined (Adekunle and Ogunlade, 2019).

A ninth problem concerns the policy and institutional responses to land speculation, and their effectiveness in protecting women farmers. The FCT land administration system has been criticized as opaque and biased toward powerful interests; there are limited data on how many women have successfully registered land rights, how many have received compensation after displacement, or how many have used legal channels to challenge speculative acquisitions. The effectiveness of existing policies—such as the FCT’s agricultural land preservation provisions (zoning agricultural land, restricting conversion)—has not been evaluated. The role of customary authorities (village heads, traditional councils) in regulating land transactions and protecting women’s land rights is also poorly understood (Nkwogu and Okafor, 2019). Without evidence on what works and what does not, policy reform recommendations remain speculative.

A tenth problem concerns the temporal dynamics of land speculation effects. Land speculation is not a one-time event but an ongoing process that unfolds over years. Women farmers may experience a sequence of pressures: first, increased land rental prices; then, shorter lease durations; then, eviction from one plot but relocation to another; finally, complete displacement from farming. The effects on output and income may cumulate over time, or women may adapt and partially recover. Existing cross-sectional studies cannot capture these dynamics, and there are no longitudinal data on women farmers’ land access, output, and income in Kuje. Understanding the time path of effects is essential for anticipating future trends and designing timely interventions (Usman and Bello, 2020).

An eleventh problem concerns the comparison of women’s experiences with land speculation relative to men’s experiences. While this study focuses on women farmers, understanding the gender dimension requires comparison: are women more severely affected by speculation than men, or are men similarly affected? Do the mechanisms differ (e.g., women more likely to lose land through marital dissolution after sale, men more likely to be compensated)? Are women’s coping strategies constrained relative to men’s (e.g., women have less access to credit to purchase alternative land)? Without comparative analysis, it is impossible to establish that the problem is specifically a women’s land rights issue (as distinct from a general smallholder issue) or to design gender-sensitive interventions (Ogunwale and Adebayo, 2020).

A twelfth problem concerns the potential for land speculation to have indirect effects on women farmers who are not directly displaced. Through general equilibrium effects on land markets, speculation may increase land prices and rents for all farmers, not just those whose land is purchased. Women who continue to farm but must pay higher rents have lower net incomes; women who seek to expand their cultivated area face higher land acquisition costs. Furthermore, speculation may fragment the agricultural landscape, with speculators holding scattered parcels that create inefficiencies for remaining farmers (increased travel time between fields, difficulty coordinating pest management or irrigation). These indirect effects have not been estimated, and the total effect of speculation on women farmers (direct displacement plus indirect market effects) is unknown (Adamu and Ibrahim, 2019).

In summary, the effects of land speculator activities on women farmers’ crop output and income in Kuje Area Council constitute a significant knowledge gap with serious policy implications. Despite plausible theoretical mechanisms and qualitative evidence of adverse effects, there are no rigorous quantitative estimates of: the extent of land speculation; its causal effects on women’s crop output and income; the mechanisms through which effects operate; the heterogeneity of effects across different groups of women; the effectiveness of different coping strategies; or the performance of existing policy interventions. This study therefore seeks to fill these gaps by providing empirical evidence on the effects of land speculation on women farmers’ crop output and income in Kuje Area Council, FCT, Abuja, generating actionable recommendations for land policy, women’s land rights advocacy, and support programs for affected women.

1.3 Aim of the Study

The aim of this study is to analyze the effects of activities of land speculators on women farmers’ crop output and income in Kuje Area Council, Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, Nigeria.

1.4 Objectives of the Study

The specific objectives of this study are to:

1. Describe the socio-economic characteristics of women farmers in Kuje Area Council and determine the extent and nature of land speculation activities (proportion of land under speculative holding, rate of land conversion, number of women affected) affecting their farming operations.
2. Identify the mechanisms through which land speculation affects women farmers’ land access (displacement, reduced area, increased rental costs, tenure insecurity) and quantify the prevalence of each mechanism.
3. Estimate the effect of land speculation on women farmers’ crop output (total output, output per hectare, and crop composition) comparing women affected by speculation to those not affected, controlling for other factors.
4. Estimate the effect of land speculation on women farmers’ net farm income and total household income, and analyze the heterogeneity of these effects across different groups of women (by age, marital status, land rights type, off-farm income status).
5. Examine the coping strategies employed by women farmers affected by land speculation (seeking alternative land, intensification, off-farm diversification, collective action) and assess the effectiveness of different strategies in preserving output and income.

1.5 Research Questions

This study seeks to answer the following research questions:

1. What are the socio-economic characteristics of women farmers in Kuje Area Council, and what is the current extent and nature of land speculation activities affecting agricultural land in the Area Council?
2. Through what mechanisms (displacement, reduced cultivated area, increased rental costs, tenure insecurity) does land speculation affect women farmers’ land access, and what proportion of women farmers experience each mechanism?
3. What is the causal effect of land speculation on women farmers’ crop output (kg harvested, value of output), controlling for other determinants of agricultural productivity?
4. What is the causal effect of land speculation on women farmers’ net farm income and total household income, and do these effects differ significantly across different groups of women farmers?
5. What coping strategies do women farmers employ in response to land speculation pressures, and which strategies are most effective in mitigating negative effects on output and income?

1.6 Research Hypotheses

Hypothesis One

• Null Hypothesis (H₀₁): Land speculation has no significant effect on the total cultivated area of women farmers in Kuje Area Council.
• Alternative Hypothesis (H₁₁): Land speculation has a significant negative effect on the total cultivated area of women farmers in Kuje Area Council.

Hypothesis Two

• Null Hypothesis (H₀₂): Land speculation has no significant effect on the crop output (kg harvested) of women farmers in Kuje Area Council.
• Alternative Hypothesis (H₁₂): Land speculation has a significant negative effect on the crop output (kg harvested) of women farmers in Kuje Area Council.

Hypothesis Three

• Null Hypothesis (H₀₃): Land speculation has no significant effect on the net farm income of women farmers in Kuje Area Council.
• Alternative Hypothesis (H₁₃): Land speculation has a significant negative effect on the net farm income of women farmers in Kuje Area Council.

Hypothesis Four

• Null Hypothesis (H₀₄): There is no significant relationship between the length of time a woman farmer has been affected by land speculation and the magnitude of output loss she experiences.
• Alternative Hypothesis (H₁₄): There is a significant positive relationship between the length of time a woman farmer has been affected by land speculation and the magnitude of output loss she experiences (longer exposure leads to greater cumulative loss).

Hypothesis Five

• Null Hypothesis (H₀₅): There is no significant difference in crop output and income between women farmers who have formal land rights (certificate of occupancy, customary allocation documented) and those without formal rights, among women affected by land speculation.
• Alternative Hypothesis (H₁₅): Women farmers with formal land rights have significantly higher crop output and income than those without formal rights when affected by land speculation, indicating that formal rights provide some protection.

1.7 Significance of the Study

This study is significant for multiple stakeholders and purposes. First, for women farmers in Kuje Area Council and similar peri-urban areas across Nigeria, the findings will provide evidence to support advocacy for stronger land rights, better compensation mechanisms, and more effective protection against displacement. Second, for the FCT Administration and the Kuje Area Council, the study will provide empirical data on the costs of land speculation (in terms of foregone agricultural output and income) that can inform land use planning, zoning decisions, and the design of agricultural land preservation policies. Third, for the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and the FCT Department of Agriculture, the findings will inform programs to support women farmers affected by land speculation, including compensation schemes, alternative land allocation, and agricultural intensification support. Fourth, for the Federal Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development and the FCT Department of Lands and Survey, the study will provide evidence on the negative effects of unregulated land speculation, supporting arguments for stronger land market regulation, anti-speculation measures, and improved land administration transparency. Fifth, for women’s rights organizations and land rights advocacy groups, the study will provide quantitative evidence on the gender-specific impacts of land speculation, strengthening advocacy campaigns for women’s land rights and for gender-sensitive land policy reform. Sixth, for the National Assembly (particularly committees on Land, Agriculture, and Women Affairs), the findings will inform legislative action on land reform, anti-speculation measures, and women’s land rights protection. Seventh, for development partners (UN Women, World Bank, FAO, IFAD) working on women’s economic empowerment and land rights in Nigeria, the study will provide context-specific evidence to guide programming and investment. Eighth, for the academic community, the study will contribute to the literature on land speculation, gender and land rights, and peri-urban agriculture in Nigeria—a growing but under-researched nexus. Finally, by generating evidence that can inform policies to protect women farmers from land speculation, the study will contribute indirectly to women’s economic empowerment, food security, poverty reduction, and sustainable agricultural development in the FCT and beyond.

1.8 Scope of the Study

The geographical scope of this study is limited to Kuje Area Council, Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, Nigeria. Kuje is one of six Area Councils in the FCT, located approximately 40 kilometers southwest of Abuja city center. The study focuses on the rural and peri-urban wards of Kuje where agricultural activity remains significant and where land speculation pressures are most acute. The thematic scope focuses specifically on the effects of land speculator activities on women farmers’ crop output and income. The study examines land speculation as the independent variable, operationalized through multiple indicators: whether a woman has lost land to a speculator; the amount of land lost; whether land rental prices have increased due to speculation; whether perceived tenure insecurity has increased; and the proportion of agricultural land in the community held by speculators. The dependent variables are crop output (total kilograms harvested, value of output, output per hectare) and income (net farm income, total household income). The study examines both annual crops (maize, cowpea, vegetables, cassava, yam) and, where present, perennial crops. The study does not extend to livestock production, non-agricultural land uses, or the effects of speculation on men farmers except as comparison for gender analysis. The respondent scope includes women actively engaged in crop production as principal farmers (not only agricultural laborers) in the selected wards of Kuje Area Council. Key informants (village heads, land agents, speculators, Area Council land officials, women’s group leaders) are also included for qualitative data collection. The temporal scope covers the period 2015-2025, with primary data collected between 2024 and 2025, focusing on current land access and speculation exposure while also collecting retrospective information on land loss history and changes in output and income over time.

1.9 Limitation of the Study

Several limitations inherent in this study should be acknowledged transparently. First, the study relies primarily on cross-sectional survey data, which can identify correlates of land speculation exposure but cannot definitively establish causal relationships between speculation and output/income outcomes, given the potential for unobserved confounding (e.g., women who lose land may differ in other ways from those who do not). Second, the study focuses only on Kuje Area Council, so findings may not be generalizable to other Area Councils in the FCT (Abaji, Gwagwalada, Kwali, Bwari, Abuja Municipal) or to peri-urban areas in other states with different land governance systems. Third, the study’s reliance on farmer recall for data on land loss, output, income, and input use is subject to recall bias and measurement error; where possible, the study will employ multiple recall aids and cross-check responses, but administrative records are unavailable for most women farmers. Fourth, social desirability bias may affect responses about land disputes, displacement, and income, with women potentially underreporting losses or overstating coping effectiveness. Fifth, the study cannot experimentally manipulate exposure to land speculation, so comparisons between exposed and unexposed women may be confounded by unobserved differences (e.g., land quality, social networks, access to information) that affect both speculation exposure and outcomes. Sixth, the study relies on self-reported measures of land speculation exposure (e.g., whether a woman believes her land has been acquired by a speculator) rather than verification through land registry records, which are incomplete and inaccessible for most customary land. Seventh, the timing of data collection relative to the agricultural season (dry season vs. rainy season) may affect the accuracy of recall for different crops and the relevance of findings for different farming systems. Eighth, the study does not include a longitudinal component, so it cannot assess whether the effects of speculation unfold over time or whether women recover from displacement. Ninth, the sample size, while statistically adequate for planned analyses, may limit the ability to detect small effects or to conduct highly disaggregated subgroup analyses (e.g., separate analysis for each crop type or each ward with small cell sizes). Tenth, the study focuses on women farmers but does not include a comparison sample of men farmers with comparable characteristics; gender differences in effects are therefore assessed through subgroup analysis within the women-only sample rather than direct comparison. Eleventh, security conditions in parts of the FCT may affect data collection access and respondent willingness to participate. Despite these limitations, the study will employ rigorous sampling methods, validated survey instruments, appropriate analytical techniques (including propensity score matching to address selection bias, robustness checks, and sensitivity analyses), and transparent reporting to maximize the credibility and utility of its findings for policy and practice.

1.10 Definition of Terms

Land Speculation: The practice of acquiring land primarily for resale at a higher price in the expectation of future price appreciation, rather than for productive use (agriculture, residence, or business) in the present. In this study, land speculation is operationalized as the purchase of agricultural land in Kuje Area Council by individuals or entities who do not intend to farm the land themselves and who hold it vacant or in very low-intensity use pending future sale or development.

Land Speculator: An individual, group, or corporate entity engaged in land speculation. Speculators in the Kuje context include wealthy individuals (including civil servants, politicians, businesspeople, diaspora investors), real estate developers, and sometimes traditional authorities who acquire and hold land for future resale.

Women Farmer: A woman who actively engages in crop production as a principal decision-maker and laborer, cultivating land for household consumption and/or sale. In this study, women farmers include those who farm on land they own, land they rent, land allocated by family or community, or land they access through other arrangements. The study excludes women who only provide agricultural labor on others’ farms without decision-making authority.

Crop Output: The quantity of agricultural produce harvested from a defined area over a defined period (typically one agricultural season or one year). In this study, crop output is measured in kilograms for each crop type (maize, cowpea, vegetables, cassava, yam, etc.) and aggregated as total output (kg) and total value of output (NGN) using prevailing market prices.

Net Farm Income: The net monetary return from crop production, calculated as total revenue from crop sales (or imputed value of home consumption) minus total variable costs (seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, hired labor, land rental payments, transport) and allocated fixed costs (depreciation of tools and equipment). Net farm income is distinguished from total household income, which includes off-farm and non-farm income sources.

Land Access: The ability of a woman farmer to obtain and use land for agricultural production, regardless of whether she holds formal ownership. Land access may be through ownership (with or without formal documentation), rental (cash lease or sharecropping), borrowing, inheritance, or community allocation.

Tenure Security: The degree of confidence that a woman farmer’s land rights will be recognized and protected over time, without risk of eviction, expropriation, or involuntary displacement. Tenure insecurity arises when farmers believe they may lose access to land without their consent and without adequate compensation.

Land Displacement: The involuntary loss of access to land that a woman farmer was previously cultivating, due to sale of the land to a speculator, eviction by a speculator, or changes in land use that make farming impossible. Displacement may be complete (loss of all cultivated land) or partial (loss of some parcels).

Land Rental Cost: The payment (cash or in-kind) made by a woman farmer to the landowner for the right to cultivate a specific parcel for a defined period (typically one agricultural season or one year). In speculative contexts, rental costs may increase due to reduced land supply and increased competition for remaining agricultural land.

Peri-Urban Agriculture: Agricultural production activities (crop cultivation, livestock rearing, aquaculture) located in the transitional zone between urban and rural areas, where farmers face both agricultural opportunities (access to urban markets) and pressures (competition for land from urban development, higher land prices, tenure insecurity).

FCT (Federal Capital Territory): The federal territory of Nigeria containing the capital city, Abuja, established in 1976 and administered directly by the Federal Government through the FCT Administration. The FCT is divided into six Area Councils: Abaji, Abuja Municipal, Bwari, Gwagwalada, Kuje, and Kwali.

Kuje Area Council: One of the six Area Councils of the FCT, located approximately 40 kilometers southwest of Abuja city center. Kuje is predominantly rural in character but is experiencing increasing development pressure and land speculation due to its proximity to Abuja and infrastructure improvements.

Customary Land Tenure: The system of land rights and governance based on indigenous norms, customs, and traditions of the local community (primarily Gbagyi in the Kuje area), typically administered by village heads, family heads, or traditional councils. Under customary tenure, land is often held by lineage or community rather than by individuals, and women’s rights are typically derivative through male relatives.

Land Use Act of 1978: The Nigerian federal law that vests all land in each state (and the FCT) in the Governor (or FCT Minister), who grants rights of occupancy. The Act recognizes customary rights but makes them subject to the overriding authority of the state. The Act’s implementation has been criticized for creating ambiguity and opportunities for land speculation.

Certificate of Occupancy (C of O): A formal document issued by the FCT Minister (or state governors) granting a statutory right of occupancy to land for a specified period (typically 99 years). Land speculators often seek to obtain Certificates of Occupancy to strengthen their claims and facilitate resale, while most women farmers operate without such documentation.

Land Banking: A form of land speculation in which speculators accumulate large land holdings over time, holding them vacant or in low-intensity use, in anticipation of future price appreciation. Land banking reduces the supply of land available for current agricultural use.

Compensation: Payment (cash, replacement land, or other benefits) provided to farmers displaced from land, either by speculators (voluntarily or as required by law) or by government (if land is acquired for public purposes). In practice, women farmers in Kuje often receive minimal or no compensation when displaced by speculators.

Coping Strategy: An action or set of actions taken by a woman farmer in response to land speculation pressures, intended to mitigate negative effects on her crop output and income. Coping strategies include seeking alternative land, intensifying production on remaining land, diversifying into off-farm activities, participating in collective action, or pursuing legal remedies.

Land Use Conversion: The change of land from agricultural use to residential, commercial, industrial, or other non-agricultural use. Land speculation accelerates land use conversion by creating financial incentives for landowners to sell agricultural land for development.