The Complex Context of Cattle Rustling
blurb:isstoday:14032008cattle
14 March 2008: The Complex Context of Cattle Rustling
In recent times cattle rustling, hitherto a mundane traditional practice among pastoralist communities, has taken on a new and darker identity. Many argue that given the murders, rapes, abductions, loss of property and the like that is now associated with it, cattle rustling should be treated as a worse crime than pure and simple theft.
The Eastern Africa Police Chiefs Cooperation Organization (EAPCCO) “Protocol for the Prevention, Combating and Eradication of Cattle Rustling in Eastern Africa,” defines cattle rustling as ‘the stealing or planning, organising, attempting, aiding or abetting the stealing of livestock by any person from one country or community to another, where the stealing is accompanied by dangerous weapons and violence.’
Traditional cattle rustling was a benign practice undertaken for both socio-economic and social reasons. It was mainly a coping mechanism used to restock livestock lost through drought, or to gain the cattle needed for the payment of a dowry. In some cases cattle theft was part of a rite of passage for a young warrior. Rarely was rustling done purely for the purposes of accumulating individual wealth. Today, however, cattle rustling has taken on a more ruthless and mercenary form. One important factor contributing towards this transformation has been the employment of weapons such as automatic rifles. The stolen livestock is nowadays sold in commercial markets mostly located far from the pastoralist areas. This new practice is sometimes referred to as ‘commercialized’ cattle rustling.
The two types of cattle rustling, the traditional and the modern, could quite conceivably be thought to exist side by side today. The socio-cultural reasons why cattle rustling was carried out in the past are still prevalent. While there is no justification for any type or form of cattle rustling, the question is whether there is need, in light of the foregoing, to continue interrogating its contextual interpretation. In other words, is there cattle rustling that is still (relatively) benign?
Upon ratification, the protocol will need to be domesticated and its provisions implemented at the community level while considering circumstances confronting pastoralist communities. If cattle rustling were simply interpreted as a crime, it could entail the dangerous connotation that stringent enforcement measures would be the primary means of addressing the problem.
Fortunately, the protocol acknowledges the fact that the problem of cattle rustling cannot be addressed from an enforcement perspective alone. There is a need to take cognizance of socio-cultural drivers of cattle rustling. Every country has laws and statues that explicitly prohibit cattle rustling, and every pastoralist community has traditional approaches that address and regulate this practice. However, despite these provisions, cattle rustling is still rife.
One of the proposed strategies in the protocol for curbing cattle rustling is branding, marking and tracing/tracking of livestock. It is true that branding, marking and record-keeping offer a disincentive to potential livestock thieves, and has the advantage that stock, once stolen, cane more easily be traced and recovered. However, it should also be remembered that every pastoralist community has its own distinct form of livestock branding, marking and record-keeping. Yet, irrespective of this, cattle rustling or theft still takes place and the livestock in most cases is lost. This means that branding, marking and tracking as a purely enforcement strategy, if not informed by other strategies such as public education, might well have only a limited impact.
The Protocol looks at cattle rustling from a relatively wide perspective. For example, it makes provisions for the support of legal measures, law enforcement, public awareness and the like. Nonetheless, as the example of branding shows, successfully implementing the protocol is likely to face significant challenges. Challenges of apolitical, social-cultural, socio-economic and technical nature are to be anticipated. Furthermore, livestock rustling must be understood within the wider context of conflicts in the pastoralist areas. These conflicts are many, diverse, and generally complex.
The protocol has clearly attempted to take into account the broader context of this problem. Inevitably, however, such a contextual exploration opens up a range of challenges to implementing the goals of the protocol.
The painful fact is that the practice of cattle rustling is rife, is in continuous transformation, and has devastating negative consequences on pastoralist and adjacent communities. The protocol will, no doubt, make invaluable contributions towards the prevention and combating of the cattle rustling. However, the total eradication of the practice is unlikely.
M.J. Kimani, Senior Researcher: MIFUGO Programme, ISS Nairobi Office
