“Values of pastoralism, with a focus on Eastern Africa” – open discussion briefing

At this year’s Tropentag conference in Ghent, CELEP had the opportunity to lead an open discussion about the values of pastoralism with a focus on Eastern Africa. The four members of the panel were :

• Dr Brigitte Kaufmann: Professor for Social Ecology of Tropical and Subtropical Land-use Systems at the University of Hohenheim.
• Dr Ann Waters-Bayer: Agrecol Association; member of the Core Group of the Coalition of European Lobbies for Eastern African Pastoralism (CELEP).
• Antonia Braus: Desk Office for International Animal Health and Pastoralism at Vétérinaires Sans Frontières (VSF) Germany and veterinarian.
• Michael Odhiambo: Director at People, Land and Rural Development (PLRD) in Kenya

Koen Van Troos from VSF Belgium and CELEP focal point led the discussion.

The main characteristic of pastoralism is herd mobility. Livestock keepers in the Eastern African drylands move depending on the availability of water and grasslands to make the best use of natural resources. As described by Prof. Dr Brigitte Kaufmann, pastoralists “are targeting pastures not only where but also when it is most nutritious to do so.”  Prof. Dr. Kaufmann argued that pastoral livestock systems are highly sophisticated and specialised systems, with production principles that build on human-animal-environment interactions rather than on control and manipulation of the environment. Pastoralists count on their indigenous knowledge to determine grazing routes and chose breeds that are adapted to the environment.

However, mobile peoples are not easy for governments to control, which explains the efforts put into settling pastoralists, e.g. by setting up irrigation projects. Promoting (irrigated) crop farming is neither the best economic choice nor the best ecological one for the dryland areas in which pastoralism is practised. Irrigation in such areas demands high investments and is not eco-friendly. Compared to animal products, crop products offer a lower return on investments as well as less flexibility. The crops that agro-pastoralists grow are usually for their own consumption, as  an add-on to their main activity: livestock keeping. The economic importance at a national and regional level of pastoral production needs to be emphasised. It needs to be explained, on one hand, that pastoral families don’t need crop agriculture to ensure their food security and, on the other hand, that  their children need to have access to formal education.

Even though there are many advantages to the specific pastoral way of production as described above, pastoralist communities have to face numerous challenges: climate change, land fragmentation, marginalisation at a policy level, and lack of access to services being the main ones. Historically, pastoralist communities always had poor relationships with governmental institutions, because of the negative perception of their livelihood system and their remote location away from centres of political power. This also contributed to low government investment in and marginalisation of the pastoral areas.

Herd mobility is an important mechanism that supports pastoralists in adapting to climate change. NGOs and local governments should work together with pastoralists to develop solutions so that pastoralists can maintain or even enhance herd mobility. It is important to note that livestock keepers are figuring out solutions to their problems on an everyday basis; they are not waiting for external stakeholders to help them, as it may appear from some discourses. These same discourses often target external defendents of pastoralism, arguing that they have a romanticised view on this way of life. “Lobbying groups such as CELEP do recognise that, especially in view of human population growth in the drylands, not all people will want or be able to continue living from pastoralism; therefore, there is also a need to give attention to formal education and livelihood diversification to complement pastoralism”, as stated by Dr. Ann Waters-Bayer during the discussion. Michael Odhiambo added to this by saying “If the mainstream view of pastoralism is to label it as traditional and to have no future whatsoever, then whoever says something positive about it and points out its strengths is automatically seen as “romanticising” it, just because of not following the mainstream view”.

To support pastoralists, improving access to infrastructure and services, not only for education but also for health, e.g. through access to better water, would help to improve the livelihoods of pastoral families. In this regard, Antonia Braus argued, “There is a clear need to invest in integrated animal and human health services (“One Health”), which would also have a positive impact on the environment, especially in pastoralist areas.

In the words of Michael Odhiambo, “the overall goal in development support to pastoralists must be to improve their capacities to design their own development and to engage positively with governments and other development actors” .

Posted on 5 October 2018 in CELEP Documents, News, Pastoralism & Culture, Pastoralism & Natural Resources, Pastoralism, Mobility & Land Tenure, Value of Pastoralism