Who Are The Right Custodians Of Pastoral Communities?
blurb:isstoday:050808pastoralist
05 August 2008: Who Are The Right Custodians Of Pastoral Communities?
There is increasing debate about who has the right to speak on behalf of pastoral communities. Who are the right custodians of pastoralists - those who depend for their living primarily on livestock? And who should be invited to conferences to state their case? Some feel that experts addressing pastoralist-related issues are not pastoralists themselves and cannot therefore claim to provide solutions to problems affecting these communities. Others also believe nomadic pastoralists are not sufficiently included in decision-making and marginalised from discussions that ironically seek to emancipate them from political, social and economic isolation.
Recently, during a meeting held at a pastoral region, a participant emotionally expressed that they were tired of interventions that are made on their behalf by non-pastoralist who claimed to address problems faced by pastoral communities. At national and regional meetings, most participants representing pastoral communities are not pastoralists in practice or otherwise. Hence the intriguing question on who are indeed the right custodians and advocates for pastoralist communities?
At yet another meeting focusing on the Draft Protocol on the Prevention, Combating and Eradication of Cattle Rustling in Eastern Africa, a contentious issue arose on whether or not there was sufficient community involvement in drafting the said instrument. While the communities were not consulted directly, Eastern Africa Police Chiefs Cooperation Organisation supported by the Institute for Security Studies (ISS) through the Arms Management Programme (AMP) involved pastoralist community representatives.
Essentially, the input from the community representatives was crucial and appropriately considered. The voice of the community representatives not only added value and content but also toned down an instrument that was initially drafted by EAPCCO Legal Sub-committee, largely consisting of police officers from the eleven member states; Burundi, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Seychelles, Somalia, Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda.
While it might be argued that it is not possible to involve enough pastoralist community representatives, it is also true that the extent to which they are consulted could raise more questions than answers. Also, there could be further debate as to what mandate did the community representatives have to make inputs to the Draft Protocol? In spite of deliberate efforts to include pastoralist representatives, there is still a nagging feeling of inadequate community involvement even when there seems to be quite a robust representation of their views.
In order to understand the basis of this debate, it is perhaps necessary to focus on the following questions: what does community involvement entail; who are community representatives and what level of community involvement is deemed sufficient?
As the name suggests community involvement denotes the process of participation, engagement and consultation of communities at various interventions. This process of participation is ideally meant to be experienced during the planning and actual implementation phases of any project.
The issue of who represents communities is more problematic as it poses the fundamental question of who has the mandate to play such a role. Legally it could be argued that Members of Parliament are the official representatives of their communities, however it is impractical to involve them in each and every intervention. Thus this vacuum has effectively been filled by a plethora of community-based organisations that claim to be the link between national and international agencies or organisations and the respective communities.
The other level of representation is community elders. This is the group that have to be consulted before one makes an entry into any community setting. They are the so-called ‘custodians or gatekeepers.’ It is however an open question whether community based organisations or elders are really the community voice and custodian.
Community Based Organisations have carved their niche and are indispensable in community engagement. From a practical point of view, it is clear that in pastoral regions of Kenya and Uganda the role of these organisations is so important that in some instances they could make or break any intervention. Their influence has grown to the point that they ‘own’ certain zones and areas of intervention including pastoralism.
As regards what would be deemed adequate or sufficient community involvement, one first has to ask the question; what is participation? Is it defined in terms of numbers or expertise? For effective community participation, one has to be alive to the socio-cultural conditions of a particular community. Lack of understanding of the communities’ cultural conditioning has continued to contribute to dismal participation of communities at different fora and levels of intervention.
At meetings that target both men and women, especially in pastoral regions, there is a less obvious hierarchy on who could speak and who should not. In most cases, limitation on speech at such fora affects women. Therefore, in situations where they are invited alongside their male counterparts, it is difficult to get the female perspective on some issues as protocol and procedure is respected.
The other important aspect to be born in mind is the fact that while there is determination to reach as many members of most pastoral communities, infrastructure and communication continues to be key prohibitions, coupled by logistical arrangements and availability of sufficient funds. It is also true that community representatives are sometimes identified in an attempt to reduce costs on otherwise very expensive ventures and challenges relating to communication and numerous dialects within respective communities.
Regardless of the pitfalls of community involvement it is an essential ingredient in the design and implementation of any process that will have an impact on the well-being of the community. It is through proper problem identification that an appropriate solution could be realised. All that is needed to guarantee community participation is sustainable capacity building and an enabling environment within which to realise the fundamental rights of pastoral communities.
Abeba Berhe Amene, Mifugo Project; Community and Civil Society Outreach Officer, ISS Nairobi
