Petro-politics, Gender Violence and Human Trafficking in Nigeria’s Niger Delta Region

The paper addresses a very important issue of how oil politics affects gender violence and foster human trafficking in Niger delta area of Nigeria.

The strength of the paper lies in the mixture of literature review, theory and field data. The empirical approach to the paper somehow enriched the discourses

The gender dimension of the violence meted out to victims of human trafficking in the region was well presented

1. The methodology is not detailed enough in terms of the numbers of people who were interviewed, how and why they were selected
2. The article did not emphasize the interconnection of politics and oil. An analysis of the violence of the Nigeria state and how this feeds into human trafficking is missing. The state has been very violent due to its rentier nature and many elites in the region as in other parts of the country are complicit
3. There several general statements such as saying many of the women, many of the victims etc.

The paper addresses a very festering social problem in Niger Delta area of Nigeria. Although it is a general problem, the case study approach adopted by the author helped to provide deep insights and analysis. The intersection of the state and oil politics could provide strong theoretical foundation for the analysis if well constructed. The methodology section could also provide more details about the background of the participants in the research. Given the focus on human trafficking, the paper can be published in this journal if well revised

The author is invited to address the weaknesses identified above. A thorough language edit is also recommended

Ask for minor revision

This article tackles an issue of marginalisation in the petroleum value chain and its ramifications for women. By employing feminist political ecology as a theoretical framework, the paper intends to explain how oil politics perpetuate women’s socio-economic deprivation. The introduction also touches on how the background of oil politics in the Niger Delta lead to the perpetuation of gender violence and ultimately trafficking for forced labour and sexual exploitation.

I think author needs to draw on some landmark human rights violations within the petro-politics of the Niger Delta (e.g. the politically motivated hanging of Ken Saro-Wiwa).

Reviewer Comments
Petro-politics, Gender Violence and Human Trafficking in Nigeria’s Niger Delta Region

Introduction:
This article tackles an issue of marginalisation in the petroleum value chain and its ramifications for women. By employing feminist political ecology as a theoretical framework, the paper intends to explain how oil politics perpetuate women’s socio-economic deprivation. The introduction also touches on how the background of oil politics in the Niger Delta lead to the perpetuation of gender violence and ultimately trafficking for forced labour and sexual exploitation. I think author needs to draw on some landmark human rights violations within the petro-politics of the Niger Delta (e.g. the politically motivated hanging of Ken Saro-Wiwa).
The section on the theoretical framing of the paper uses feminist political ecology to provide a theoretical context for the paper. The first sentence under this section should be removed because it seems to be a comment from, maybe, reviewers during the preparation of the paper. The author vividly explain how feminist political ecology could provide a theoretical home for the paper. But I do not see which specific structures, norms, actions, etc. within the realm of global, national and local petro-politics in the Niger Delta that the theory of feminist political ecology would use as a basis for discussing the realities/manifestations in the Niger Delta. This would have created a fertile context for the discussion of empirical data and needs to be considered.
The section on the trafficking literature is satisfactory. But I think all scientific claims should be substantiated. For example, the author mentioned polygamy and large family size as practices that could drive trafficking; I think the author is referring to polygyny. It is important to provide the average family and household size in the study area to support such claims. At least, those statistics for Nigeria should suffice.
The research methodology employed is adequate and can answer the research questions posed. But we need to know more about some basic socio-demographic characteristics of the study participants since they were not captured (in parenthesis at the end of each quote). How were the participants recruited? We need to know the non-probability sampling techniques that were/was employed. Knowing all these will boost the credibility of the data and subsequently the analysis.
Thematic and content analyses techniques were employed to analyse the qualitative data generated through in-depth interviews, focus group discussions and observation. Under section 5 of the manuscript, the author quoted some statistics to show the proportion of the population that was women (60% - 70%). How was these statistics arrived at since only qualitative data were collected? Was it an estimation? If it was. On what basis? And how has this related to the same proportion nationally or by state? Also, we need to understand whether land is leased to women by their husbands and how this assertion fits in the cultural context of the study communities. This is based on the fact that in many patrilineal societies in sub-Sahara Africa, women have a user rights but cannot transfer, for example a parcel of land they cultivate, to their children, which is only acceptable through the male line.
The author explained how the feminist political ecology framework would be used but that was the last time this framework was mentioned. The author needs to revisit this framework and situate the discussion of the findings within this framework.
A major flaw of this paper is the issue of repetition and redundancy. Many of the findings have been repeated. Once this is achieved the discussion will be tightened. The paper needs a thorough clean-up and very strong editing.
In conclusion, I suggest the paper needs a major revision in order to take the issues raised on board to push the paper to publishable level.

But we need to know more about some basic socio-demographic characteristics of the study participants since they were not captured (in parenthesis at the end of each quote). How were the participants recruited? We need to know the non-probability sampling techniques that were/was employed. Knowing all these will boost the credibility of the data and subsequently the analysis.

Thematic and content analyses techniques were employed to analyse the qualitative data generated through in-depth interviews, focus group discussions and observation. Under section 5 of the manuscript, the author quoted some statistics to show the proportion of the population that was women (60% - 70%). How was these statistics arrived at since only qualitative data were collected? Was it an estimation? If it was. On what basis? And how has this related to the same proportion nationally or by state? Also, we need to understand whether land is leased to women by their husbands and how this assertion fits in the cultural context of the study communities. This is based on the fact that in many patrilineal societies in sub-Sahara Africa, women have a user rights but cannot transfer, for example a parcel of land they cultivate, to their children, which is only acceptable through the male line.

Ask for major revision

1. The author needs to avoid repetition of the same points in different words. Once the point that oil extraction has a negative impact on women, it is important to move on to the next point, for example, demonstrating why and how this is the case. Pp. 1-3, seem to be going round and round in circles. The introduction should only highlight the main arguments that are presented in the rest of the paper and it should be concise and straight to the point. The inclusion of information which should be clearly delineated in various sections after the introduction could be one of the reasons why this section sounds repetitive. What are the main arguments? This is the question that should be addressed in the introduction. As it is, it is difficult to make head and tail of the information without information on the specific arguments that the author is putting forward. This way, it would be easier to write a conclusion that reiterates the main points in the paper and the insights drawn from these points.

2. Why are women more exposed to pollution than men living in the same environment? Why are women involved in the trafficking of other women and what does this say about gender and human trafficking? The author mentions the involvement of women recruiters and „Madams“ but appears to be oblivious to this being a case of women exploiting other women.

3. What does „any given moment“ refer to in „…at any given moment 3.5 million Africans are being trafficked…“ (pg. 5)? This is vague and needs to be clarified especially when the author provides a figure as alarming as this.

4. „Although Nigeria is ranked as sub-Sahara Africa’s largest producer and sixth largest in the world; with proven oil and gas reserves of 37 billion barrels and 192 trillion-cubit feet (IMF 2018), the Niger Delta region where Nigeria’s oil resource is located and where oil multinationals carry out oil production activities is a major site of human trafficking in Nigeria (Udujia et al. 2019). Human trafficking in the Niger Delta is mostly prevalence in the rural oil communities (PIND, 2018).“ This information should be at the beginning of the section and not somewhere in the middle. The author needs to pay attention to structure and ensure that introductory information is provided at the beginning.

5. If trafficking is linked to the oil industry, does this mean that trafficking is not an issue outside the Niger Delta? There is need to clarify the identification of the oil industry as the main reason behind human trafficking in Nigeria. Are there statistics showing that most of the women who are trafficked come from this part of Nigeria?

6. The section Theoretical Perspectives starts with the sentence „Use sections to structure your article’s presentation.“ „She later became pregnant and gave birth to a year“ (pg. 12) It is important for authors to carefully read their manuscripts before submission and avoid mistakes like these as they can put reviwers off.

7. It is important to write with a global readership in mind. This means that the local currency should have a US$ equivalent in brackets in order to give non-Nigerian readers an idea of how much is being referred to. I do understand that some authors may not agree with the use of the US$ as the global monetary unit but they need to make a choice on what is important: a global readership or the political economy of currencies.

8. The idea of women having more children than they can afford to look after raises the question why women do not use contraceptives. Is it because they lack information and/or access? Can the author address this issue? Trafficking in women has been going on for many years in Nigeria. Why is it that the girls and women are still unaware of the fate that awaits people who are trafficked? Is it because the abundant information in the media also coming from escaped victims has not reached these girls and women in Nigeria?

9. „…ignorance about the nature of man inhumanity…“ (pg. 13). What does this mean?

10. On pg. 14, does „…young girl…“ really mean this or it should be young woman? If it’s a girl meaning someone below 18, there is a difference between a girl at 16 anda girl below this age, for example, below 10. Using age could be a way around creating wrong impressions. This makes a whole lot of a difference considering that the interviewee talks about one of the leaders trying to have sex with her. If she is indeed a young girl, this would present the leader in question as a paedophile. Is this the information the author intends to convey? This shows the importance of word choice in academic writing. There is need to be factual and pay attention to meanings.

11. Pg. 16, what does „…because they believed they perceived they would engage in sexual exploitation…“ mean? Some paragraphs on pg. 16 repeat what has been said in the preceding sections. I thought I was reading the conclusion only to find that these paragraphs are not part of the conclusion.

12. Pay attention to tense and do not mix different tenses in the same sentence unless of course one refers to the past and the other to the present. For example, in the abstract, the sentence „Women‘s exposure to human trafficking amplified gender violence and violate their rights. I suggest that the author use present tense for verbs that refer to the current situation. I suggest caution on word choice. I would not refer to women as doing things or consenting to them „unwittingly“ or the communities that are affected by oil extraction as „hapless“. This is insulting to the people so referred to as the adjectives treat them as passive victims. Is this the intended image? Women have the capacity to rationalize their decisions and they choose what they see as the better option regardless of normative views. The author even alludes to this on pg. 6 where they write that stories of wealth amassed by trafficked returnees act as a „pull“ factor. On pg. 2, if violence is going to be referred to as a „reward“, this word should be in quotation marks. How does one view violence as a reward and not see the problem with this without quotation marks? On pg. 13, the author refers to trafficking as a business. I would expect „business“ in quotation marks since this is not a legitimate business but a crime. Perhaps it is better to avoid the use of this kind of language or irony and metaphors and the concomitant faux pas. I suggest replacing „lady“ with woman which is a neutral term in academic writing. Take note of the difference between live and leave (pg. 12). Overall, this paper needs serious editing for grammar, typos and brevity.

Ask for major revision