What do Pastoral Communities in East Africa Want?
blurb:isstoday:17062008eastafricamifugo
17 June 2008: What do Pastoral Communities in East Africa Want?
There is a need for a comprehensive policy framework on pastoral lifestyles in East Africa to ensure more effective engagement with pastoral communities. This is a gap that the Mifugo Project, which is overseeing the implementation process of the Draft Protocol on the Prevention, Combating and Eradication of Cattle Rustling in Eastern Africa, may not have the immediate mandate and capacity to address. (Mifugo is Swahili for 'livestock').
Barely two months ahead of the signing of the Draft Protocol major challenges lie in the path of effectively implementing the tenets envisaged. The Draft Protocol is set to be signed in Addis Ababa in August 2008 during the Annual General Meeting of the East Africa Police Chiefs Cooperation Organization (EAPCCO). The signing is significant as it will enhance member states’ commitment towards addressing the challenge of cattle rustling and related problems.
Since the inception of the implementation process at the beginning of this year, several steps have been taken towards putting in place a strong technical team followed by the high profile launch of the project in mid May 2008. However, stark realities, hitherto seen on the horizon, are staring the Mifugo project directly in the face. Indeed, the realities might require a rethink not only in respect of the project strategy but also assumptions contained therein.
Firstly, cattle rustling have been viewed as a crime at least from the conventional perspective. Also, in the national legislation of most of the affected countries, it is described as a crime. As to whether pastoralists regard cattle rustling as a crime requires further research. What is emerging is the necessity to engage closely with the affected communities, as interventions lacking wider consultation are likely to be resisted by the same communities for which they are meant. There is also the need to have a meeting of minds between pastoralists and relevant government agencies with a view of building consensus on practical and sustainable interventions. Obviously, the phenomenon has mutated so rapidly that the solutions need to be intricately cognisant of this reality.
Secondly, the nexus between cattle rustling and the proliferation of small arms and light weapons and the attendant violence has been conclusively consummated. Of course it would not be sufficient to state that disarmament would singly solve cattle rustling and related problems. Indeed it is one of the solutions just as much as it is one of the effects. Acquisition of small arms by pastoralists in most instances is arguably a matter of necessity more than it is a matter of choice. While sections of pastoral communities acquire small arms to secure livestock and to safeguard their livelihoods, a regional approach like the implementation of the Draft Protocol still remains a better vehicle as opposed to uncoordinated national strategies that in most cases are perceived to bring short-term solutions.
Thirdly, the Draft Protocol, which is largely anchored on the pillar of enforcement, recommends livestock branding and marking for purposes of tracking rustled stock. The envisaged legal framework as provided for in the Draft Protocol is tilted towards a similar direction. The presumption of the needs of pastoralist communities needs to be verified through research and purposed engagement a means towards determining priorities that pastoralists have.
In this respect, some arguments have been raised in favour of repackaging the Mifugo Project with regard to integrating it with animal disease control, development, marketing of livestock products, and alternative livelihood and related programmes. Arguably, these will provide a form of incentive for pastoral communities to sustainably support the provisions of the Draft Protocol. While the arguments are valid, they may not be achieved within the implementation of the Draft Protocol, but possibly through a comprehensive pastoralist policy framework that member states might wish to pursue and for which they would make adequate budgetary allocations.
Fourthly, regional approaches are sometimes faced with claims of sovereignty by member states, vested political interests, insufficient political will, rough geographical terrain, and changes in political leadership. These are some of the challenges the implementation process is likely to face with regard to harmonisation of some of the national laws. However, there is a ray of hope if only the member states could implement and borrow a leaf from the experience of other regional processes, for example, the European Union and COMESA on harmonization of national laws to meet regional requirements. Nonetheless, the process of regional law reform is monumental especially when some of the national laws remain ‘part of the old school.’ For instance, the land policy requires fundamental redress as it affects pastoral communities and the struggle over pastoralist resources.
Fifthly, cattle rustling have evolved from a cultural practice to a commercialised economy. It appears it is no longer a preserve of pastoralists. Reports abound of traders in livestock products being involved in cattle rustling directly or indirectly. In some circles, opinion leaders too have not escaped in the speculation of either direct or indirect involvement perhaps with the ‘good intention,’ to support affected communities. Law enforcement agencies as well have in some instances been accused of lack of impartiality thereby compromising their professional responsibility. Indeed, the reality of pastoralism presents a daunting task for the Mifugo Project.
Finally, the Project is riding on a path that is highly ambitious as it involves huge capital outlays. To be precise, when a regional branding and marking system is finally implemented, the capacity of enforcement system will be lacking in terms of; communication equipment, lack of helicopters for tracking, low salaries, lack of trucks to operate in difficult terrain, etc. These aspects remain a huge challenge to the implementing states. Affected member states are also grappling with more basic issues of food, water, diseases and infrastructure. Propelling the problem of cattle rustling at the centre stage of governments’ priorities against the backdrop of other competing priorities remains a real challenge.
In spite of all the challenges that the implementation process of the Draft Protocol is likely to face, it is pretty clear that the Mifugo Project has received overwhelming support from government departments and offices especially from the five implementing states; Ethiopia, Kenya, Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda. What is not in doubt is the fact serious networking, involvement of affected communities in all key decisions, lobbying for government support and collaborative efforts by civil society groups involved in pastoralist development is the fundamental key. Further, the need for a comprehensive policy framework on pastoralism cannot be overemphasized.
Philip Sabwa -Senior Training Coordinator, Mifugo Programme, ISS Nairobi
