Article/ Feature

1/March/2011

Indigenous Pastoralism: Outdated or Unsupported Model?      

By: Clarence KIPOBOTA (Advocate)*

It is obvious that pastoralism is one of the main social and economic activities for most of rural Tanzanian. However, unlike agriculture, it receives more condemnation than support. 

Both legal and policy frameworks of Tanzania do not put weight on it for an apparent reason that it is outdated. Others say that it degrades the environment because of the nature of its undertaking which commands dynamics and mobility of animals from draught places to greener pastures and watering points.

It is true that contemporary world encourages disposition of so called outdated cultures. The standards are set by aliens but imposed to the local communities without strict regard of the nature of their living and connectivity to the surrounding environment. Unfortunately, the mission to alter traditional ways is backed and enforced by laws and political statements.

Of certain is a fact that, no one culture can claim best practice than the other because each has its own ways of getting its followers livelihoods and conformability. Moreover, it is the nature and surrounding environment which decided the norms, culture and behaviors of the people. As such nomadic grazing is a tune of all these factors.    

But the followers and believers of indigenous pastoralism usually fail to defend their ways in simple terms because the pressure from aliens’ cultures outweighs their ability to build-up cases on their sides.

Socio-economic and political backgrounds of these groups mainly comprised of Maasai and Sukuma cause them to fall victims of the circumstance. But a farmer with hand hoe in this 21^st century is accepted to follow his old ways; in fact, more budgets are allocated for his improvement. The aim is to facilitate him retaining his old means of survivor.

But what is wrong with the indigenous pastoralism? Does it really intend to turn the whole country a grazing land as it once said by the government officials?

Probably, a little bit of history and experience about indigenous pastorialism could confirm some facts and guide our ideas.

   

Firstly, pastoralism is one of the first human activities in the world. For Africans, domestic animals were and still play multiple roles and advantages to human beings.

Apart from being food for daily consumption, they also serve as insurance for economic needs and social security (still a case in rural areas to date). Probably, most of the current elites in Tanzania were raised through livestock keepings.

History, researches and experience shows that as users of rangelands who are reliant upon the provision of numerous ecosystem services such as water and food, pastoralists have a unique knowledge of how a balance between conservation and sustainable use can be maintained.

It is also on scientific records that, pastoralism influences the fertility of soil, distribution and diversity of plants, as animals scarify seeds in their guts, transport them over large distances, and fertilize grounds where seeds are deposited.

The co-existence of Maasai and wildlife in Ngorongoro has never been a threat to the wildlife. Some of the wild animals like zebra much depend on existence of human beings around. Then, the question of environmental conservation needs more exploration than it’s outface.

Behind the main reason of this alarm lays liberal economy factors, which ruthlessly tries to exterminate indigenous ways.

The love of investment money hurt local interests. Hence, hatred and buildup grounds to squeeze indigenous pastoralists from their ancestral lands. Evictions, land use planning and expansion of reserved areas are just few tricks currently used.    

Numerous incidences of evictions can be cited here. For instance, according to consortium of Tanzanian organizations, in the period from May 2006 to May 2007, large numbers of Sukuma agro-pastoralists and IlParakuiyo, Taturu and Barabaig pastoralists and their livestock were been evicted from the Usangu Plains in Mbarali district, Mbeya region on ground that, their activities in the basin threatened water source.

Between December 2008 and April 2009 there was another eviction of pastoralists from some of the known pastoral villages in Kilosa and Mvomero districts of Morogoro region. In July 2009 eviction was done in Loliondo Game Controlled Area on same reasons, specifically environmental pollution.

While all these happen, in Loliondo for instance, an investor is allowed to construct and operate private big airstrip in the middle of wildlife corridors of Ololosokwan village and other birthing areas. There are also semi-permanent houses constructed in the reserved area and that, the local communities cannot easily access water source near the investor’s palace.

In other national parks, where the indigenous pastoralists are not allowed to graze, there are five star hotels constructed in the reserved. They drain water and cause noises harmful to wild animals. Their presence is advantageous to the local communities. They give little or nothing to them.  

As it is said above, the laws and policies are not supportive of the indigenous pastoralism. What is in the minds of the law and policy markers is commercialization of natural resources for country’s development. 

The newly enacted Wildlife Conservation Act, 2009 proposes for removal of the villagers from the reserved areas including the Game Controlled Areas (GCAs), which previously allowed co-existence of human beings and wildlife.

The Land Act of 1999 and the Village Land Act of 1999 provide for customary right of occupancy and grade it as of same status as the granted right of occupancy. It is indeed a laudable step. However, both laws do not specifically address the indigenous land ownership as the ILO 169 Convention Concerning Indigenous and Tribal People in Independent Countries of 1989 and other international human rights instruments require.     

As for the policy, the Agriculture and Livestock Policy of 1997 recognize presence and undertakings of indigenous pastoralism.

The policy states that about 90 percent of the national cattle herd is of indigenous breed, namely the Tanzania Short-Horn Zebus. It further states that, the indigenous variety is owned by the traditional herders. Out of the 3.8 million farming households some 106,000 practice pastoralism and another 268,000 are engaged in agro-pastoralism.

Furthermore, about 98 percent of the livestock are under these two systems. Only 303,704 of the total cattle population of 15.6 million head are of improved type. About 212,299 (1.4 percent) are improved dairy cattle and 91,045 (0.6 percent) are improved beef cattle.

There would be slight changes of figures between now and 1997, but this can still triggers something to speak about. That is, we are still depending on indigenous pastoralism and probably this will remain a case for decades to come.

Then, it is almost wastage of time and unnecessary agonies to the indigenous people to hate their ways and evict or grab their lands for any reason. I mean, both justifications for terminating pastoralism fail to hold sufficient reasons.

Rightly as this policy points out, pastoralism (nomadic, semi-nomadic) is practiced by mainly vulnerable pastoralists. What is to be done here is first, enhance their productivity and secondly facilitate them to access viable and more profitable markets.

It is not not practical and sustainable to force imparting of modernized husbandry into traditional husbandry. Any change that have to be made, should find ways of mainstreaming traditional or indigenous husbandry rather than just rejecting it the way we do.

It is not at all a problem to accumulate stock in big numbers. What is important is to find ways of making facilities available. Surely, with this population of 42 million Tanzanians, we need more tons of meat and litters of milk to satisfy the fast growing local market.

The pastoralists do not need hatred and mistreatments. They need adequate animal health infrastructures and services such as harvesting equipments to mitigate mobility for search of water. They have limited options apart from pastoralism. As it is said above, pastoralism is not only an economic activity. It is also a culture which makes identity of someone. Therefore, curtailing it means denying him of his culture.

Other issue to be considered is how best our government is there for the interests of local people. The ten years implementation of the Land Act of 1999 and the Village Land Act of 1999 prove little success. Poor Tanzanians are still not adequately protected to own and manage their traditional lands.

The security of tenure is so weak. This is why they can be so easily moved from Loliondo, Nkomazi, Serengeti, Hanang and everywhere without given adequate compensation or alternative settlements.

In most cases, the investors are so powerful and take poverty of our people into granted. Soon or later we will have increased landless Tanzanians if no affirmative measures are taken.   

Probably all these evictions, mistreatments and illusions should stop and go back to our roots. Let us accept modern ways but also we need to be proud of what has been our identity for long time.

While we do all these, we should also ask ourselves that, why do we like and need indigenous pastoralism’s meat and milk while we seriously hate their ways of life? Imagine a situation when these people will boycott supply of cows just for two weeks.  

---

* Clarence KIPOBOTA holds Bachelor of Laws Degree (LL.B (Hons)), Masters of Community Economic Development (Msc. CED) and Certificates in Human Rights and UN Treaty Monitoring Bodies. He is an Advocate of the High Court of Tanzania, currently working as Legal Consultant with LEGAL AND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS LIMITED (LEDECO). He is also Human Rights Activist. Email: kipobota@yahoo.com Tel: +255 762776281/ +255 222700695.