The direct economic contribution of pastoralism to the Kenyan economy (through the production of milk, meat, skins, hides, etc) cannot pass unnoticed. The 2009 National Census figures give credence to this.
Turkana County alone has (from 2009 figures) 1,534,612 cattle, 3,517,151 sheep, 5,994,861 goats, 832,462 camels, 558,187 donkeys...ad infinitum.
However, despite their economic contribution, there has been a fundamental misunderstanding of the pastoral production system in Kenya.
There is a general perception among policy makers (both at counties and national government) that pastoral lands are underused and therefore should be brought under plough or put to other uses such as ecotourism.
Such misperceptions have subjected pastoral communities to economic and political marginalisation. Policies have favoured externally-imposed development schemes which often alienate and expropriate pastoral lands in favour of large-scale commercial activities.
The ongoing oil exploration in Turkana and Baringo and the large-scale farming under-way in Tana-River come to mind.
Resource alienation and curtailment of mobility has made pastoral households vulnerable to frequent droughts, food insecurity and famine.
Policy engagement by pastoralists on key environmental issues has been weak partly due to a lack of field-based empirical evidence on pastoral land alienation and destitution.
A case in point is the blatant disregard of pastoralists' migration patterns (in search of water and pasture) during mapping and designation of oil exploration blocks in Turkana County. Hitherto migratory routes have been closed to give room to oil exploration activities hence subjecting locals to the harsh reality of changing climatic conditions.
It is, therefore, prudent that we establish a link between the escalating competition for pasture and water resources and curtailment of (pastoral) mobility due to oil exploration activities in the region.
Pastoralists have, for a long time, banked on unhindered mobility (moving from place to place) to cope up with harsh climatic conditions and the attendant risks arising from drought and famine.
Pastoralists are not against any venture that is geared to empowering and supporting them or in any way (to) exploit resources in their lands. What they demand is simple: mechanisms that respect their livelihoods and practices must be put in place.
Again, there is a need to revisit the definition of pastoralism. Due to the narrow understanding of this, we have failed to appreciate the different production scenarios in pastoral lands which include pure pastoral systems, agro-pastoral systems and urban commercial systems.
These systems, if keenly examined, will reveal the long-held truism that solutions for these pastoral lands are grounded on the livelihoods of the people living there. What is needed is a responsive planning-action method for each of these systems.
Let’s take Turkana County as a case study. The southern zones of the county are dotted with rivers and water points and vast underused land fit for agriculture.
The central belt is mainly pastoral rangeland inhabited by “pure pastoralists” punctuated by some commercial centers. As you move to the north of the county, you are confronted with a marriage of pure pastoral systems and fishing activities (around Lake Turkana).
To connect these systems it carries weight to look at the existing pastoral land tenure system. Personally, I find this land tenure system faulty and unresponsive for it is premised on the narrow definition of pastoralism vis-à-vis land use.
At the core of it is the assumption that pastoral lands are purely “pastoral” and belong to no specific person. It is more “collective” than “individual”.
Little attention has been put to think of individual ownership of land, land demarcation and registration and the need to designate certain zones as grazing zones. The line between individual and group ownership of land is blurred.
This, without doubt, could be the reason for the friction between oil exploration companies operating in the region and locals.
These squabbles should not be mistaken for hostility to commercial interests in the region. They point to a weak policy foundation. The core of the problem lies in the policies that tend to rely on land use segregation and forceful dispossession of land, ignoring the rights of local communities.
To counter these, it is instructive that we all come up with coping strategies.
One. Oil exploration companies in collaboration with local leaders and communities must explore the need to set up livestock watering/grazing corridors in zones already under oil exploration. Availability of water and pasture is an integral aspect of a pastoralist life.
Two. Land use policies ought to be designed in a manner that promotes and protects individual ownership.
Three. Explore ways to sedentarise pastoralists. We must take advantage of the upsurge of petty trade and wage employment in trading centers to send a message to our people that there exists other sources of livelihood apart from livestock keeping.
Four. Use water as a magnate for urban development. Historically, most of the existing trading centers in the region started as watering points during dry seasons. This lends a reasonable ground to believe that developing water sector (dams, piping, distribution et al) can bring to a halt the seasonal exodus of our people in such of this commodity hence creating a solid urban sedentary foundation.
Five. Explore some “forceful” reintegration methods. This is the procedure: Set up grazing zones. Equip them. Make them as attractive as possible. Call in our pastoralist folks with a condition that they will adhere to the “operating rules” such as limiting their stock numbers and attending livestock-keeping lessons.
We have solutions. We have the wherewithal to actualize them. Time to do this is now.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your thoughts? thanks for dropping them here...