Development, 2006, 49(3), (111–115) r 2006 Society for International Development 1011-6370/06 www.sidint.org/development

Local/Global Encounters

Supporting Pastoralist Livelihoods in Eastern Africa Through Peace Building

JEREMY LIND

ABSTRACT Conflict reduction and peace building initiatives have become the latest development fashion to support insecure pastoralist livelihoods in eastern Africa. Jeremy Lind argues that common approaches in this area are weakened by the predominant understanding of conflicts involving pastoralists as competition over scarce resources as well as the relative inattention to the situation and particular needs of the destitute population. KEYWORDS conflict; armed violence; peace building; development; pastoralism; Kenya

The promise of peace in an impoverished land Conflict reduction and peace building activities have become an important focus of aid and donor agency efforts to improve the livelihoods of livestock-keeping groups that inhabit a large swathe of eastern Africa straddling the borders of southern Somalia across into eastern Ethiopia, northern Kenya, southeastern Sudan and northern Uganda. The development of this impoverished region has been path dependent and is rooted in colonial perceptions of the insignificant value of what were considered to be ‘low potential’ dryland areas as well as a belief that customary pastoralism was an outdated form of production. This paradigmatic view of pastoralism and inherent development bias in favour of ‘high potential’ farming areas in countries in eastern Africa persists up to now, observed in the inequitable distribution of public funds and government services to the disadvantage of pastoralist areas. These structural dynamics frame a situation of chronic instability, conflict, and armed violence in the region and tie into a crisis in pastoralism that is characterized in part by significant humanitarian challenges and heightened levels of severe poverty (Markakis, 2004; Buchanan-Smith and Lind, 2005; Nori et al., 2005). Livestock holdings have declined to a point of material insignificance for a significant and growing proportion of the pastoralist population in eastern Africa that can be considered as destitute and is unable to meet its annual food needs even in years of ‘good’ rainfall. Aggravating this crisis is the near comprehensive loss of herds across entire social networks meaning that it is difficult to reconstitute livestock herds at a household level through reciprocal ties that customarily bond different herding units. The widespread loss of herds has accelerated a shift in livestock keeping societies away Development (2006) 49(3), 111–115. doi:10.1057/palgrave.development.1100279

Development 49(3): Local/Global Encounters from having herds as the focus of household production and contributed to a routinization of survival work to generate nominal amounts of income and livelihood in place of animal products. Although there is no singular reason for the crisis in livelihoods of livestock keepers in eastern Africa, many pastoralists themselves place explanatory emphasis on the role of armed violence in their own downward trajectories in livelihood and state of impoverishment. Thus, a focus on conflict reduction and peace building in development action holds the promise of supporting the livelihoods of pastoralists. However, the common approaches of donor and aid agencies in this area are constrained by the predominant understanding of pastoralist conflict as competition over natural resources and the activities of agencies that unfold from this view.

Nature of conflict Conflict in the pastoralist zone of eastern Africa is commonly understood as manifestation of the pressures of coping with scarcities of key natural resources. Although resource scarcities contribute to instability in the region, there is a tendency to overemphasize the role of competition over natural resources, which tend to be localized, in the agendas of donor and aid agencies involved in conflict reduction and peace building. Many pastoralist groups in the region have mechanisms to structure competition over natural resources including territorial kinship sections, seasonal restrictions on the use of drought reserve grazing, and individualized rights to some key natural resources such as shallow wells and trees along rivers and streams. Although there are legitimate concerns and debates over the effectiveness of these control mechanisms, many interventions are designed on the basis of the assumed breakdown of social relations governing access to natural resources, which is not the case. Localized competitions over natural resources are subsumed within a wider pattern of instability 112 including armed livestock raiding, attacks by ban-

dits, political tensions, and a generalized climate of fear and impunity. Livestock raiding and theft is the centre of instability across most of the region and a focus of many civil society initiatives on conflict. One common assumption is that pastoralist raiding has become more frequent, widespread, and severe. However, in some parts of the region where raiding is thought to be most intense, such as the Karamoja area of northeastern Uganda, there is no evidence of a continuous escalation over time in levels of armed violence (Knighton, 2002). The severe magnitude of raiding in northern Kenya documented in colonial archives also suggests that claims that there has been a significant increase in the frequency and scale of raiding are exaggerated. It is true that raiding became less frequent and subdued in some areas during the later years of colonial rule, but efforts by colonial officials to stop raiding were never able to remove the tendency of some herders to raid (Knighton, 2002). The paradigmatic view of conflicts involving herding societies in the region identifies scarcities of natural resources, which are presumed to be worsening, as an important cause of the livelihood insecurity of pastoralists, who are thought to resort to raiding as a survival strategy. However, these depoliticized explanations of instability in pastoralist areas divert attention from other factors that encourage raiding and the failure of political-administrative structures to control security (Cullis and Pacey, 1992). Some observers of the region identify a discontinuity between contemporary raiding and traditional practices involving the stealing of animals among herding societies. Commercial motive is commonly used to differentiate between past and current raiding, with a perceived shift from customary to‘predatory’ raiding (Hendrickson et al.,1998). However, Lamphear (1992), who completed one of the most comprehensive studies of pastoralist warfare in eastern Africa, found that pre-colonial raids by Turkana herders in northwestern Kenya were driven by poor people anxious to expand their herds. In this regard, the fundamental cause of raids being the acquisition of wealth in animals and their redistribution across a network of relations has not changed.

Lind: Pastoralist Livelihoods in Eastern Africa The turn to conflict in development action Concerns for security and stability in pastoralist areas of eastern Africa have existed over a long period. Colonial administrations in different states in the region viewed these areas as a source of instability and violence that threatened their broader political and economic interests. For example, officials in Kenya openly worried that livestock raiding by Turkana herders would displace neighbouring pastoralist and agro-pastoralist groups south of Turkanaland who in turn would move southwards putting pressure on white settlerowned commercial farms. Brutal force and collective punishment through wholesale confiscation of herds were among the measures applied by the colonial state to stop raids. The recent rise of conflict as an issue of concern in development assistance to east African pastoralists also relates to perceptions that insecurity in pastoralist areas can be destabilizing more widely. The turn to conflict reflects a broader shift in development strategy and focus toward addressing the social and economic situations in fragile states and other areas affected by conflict and armed violence. It is feared that conditions of insecurity in pastoralist areas of eastern Africa are exploited by criminal and terror networks that pose transnational threats. The United States (US) government has identified what it calls the ‘Greater Horn Area’ as a key region in the global war on terror (Markakis, 2004). Underlining this concern, it has established multicountry partnerships with states in the region on military training and intelligence gathering and pressured governments to pass controversial anti-terror legislation that has faced domestic opposition led by human rights organizations. Strengthening the human security of pastoralist groups has gained greater strategic importance for western countries in the context of the global war on terror. Donor and aid agencies concerned with reducing poverty levels and supporting pastoralist livelihoods have turned to conflict reduction and peace building activities as an entry point for achieving these goals. The focus on conflict by the donor and aid agency establishment

that provides assistance to the region’s pastoralists signifies an important shift in development approach. There was comparatively little attention to violence as a threat to people’s food security and nutrition in development approaches and policy responses to insecure pastoralist livelihoods in the 1980s and 1990s (Hendrickson et al., 1998). Further, past approaches focused on establishing destitute herders in economic activities outside of the livestock keeping economy and customary social networks even though destitutes consistently aspired to strengthen and rebuild ties to the customary livestock economy and had their own traditions of livelihood diversification, which were overlooked by planners. In contrast, donor driven conflict reduction and peace building initiatives indicate, implicitly, an appreciation that pastoralism is contracting and that development action must aim to stabilize livestock production and make pastoralism a viable economic activity alongside efforts to create alternatives to livestock keeping.

The limits of development responses to conflict and violence The dominant understanding of pastoralist conflicts as competition for scarce natural resources and/or as a socio-cultural phenomenon legitimizes bottom-up peace building approaches that aim to promote more harmonious relations between neighbouring groups and prevent the outbreak of violence. The peace building efforts of agencies tying into the dominant view are threefold. A first set of activities involves monitoring conflict indicators such as forage availability and herd movements and providing early warning information to conflict managers. An activity complementary to early warning, and a second focus of peace building efforts, is to facilitate negotiated grazing agreements between pastoralist groups and arranging livestock sale days at border towns and settlements to promote contact between groups. A third set of activities involves establishing a peace infrastructure consisting mostly of peace and security committees at district and sub-district administrative levels to communicate peace messages and inculcate a culture of peace. 113

Development 49(3): Local/Global Encounters Other activities in this area involve supporting women in peace making through‘peace crusades’ and exchange visits. The recent emphasis on conflict reduction and peace building in development responses to insecure pastoralist livelihoods is overdue. Even though the turn to conflict is driven largely from above by donor agency priorities and the interest of aid bureaucracies operating in pastoralist areas to respond quickly to changing development fashions, it corresponds with the needs and concerns of many pastoralists as they articulate these themselves. However, there are a number of weaknesses inherent in the donor-supported initiatives to reduce conflict in pastoralist areas. One problem relates to the understanding of conflict involving livestock keeping societies as competition for scarce resources. This suggests that local level harmonization initiatives can make a significant contribution to reducing conflict. A ‘local’ peace building approach focuses on the manifestations of chronic instability but does not address the underlying structural dynamics that frame the long existence of armed violence. These include the historical underdevelopment and marginalization of pastoralist areas. Thus, the longer-term effectiveness of localized peace building approaches in pastoralist areas hinge on complementary efforts to address structural inequality and underdevelopment. A further weakness is that conflict reduction initiatives may not necessarily make significant improvements in the livelihoods of destitute people who are most in need of assistance. This is due to the geography of displacement tying into armed violence, which has resulted in a significant part of the pastoralist population becoming destitute and sedentarized on the peripheries of large settlements and towns. Peace building efforts directed at reducing the occurrence of cross-border raiding, or competition over grazing resources, are obviously potentially advantageous for people ^ who are typically better off ^ that still move livestock herds to distant border grazing. Local peace building approaches promoted by donor and aid agencies may also contribute toward marginal im114 provements in the livelihoods of some destitutes,

for instance by making it safer for women to gather wild foods or children to take small herds beyond settlements in search of forage and water. However, there is a need for complementary measures tailored to the situation of the poorest who are most in need of assistance. Another weakness concerns the power relations underlying the establishment of various ‘peace’ and/or ‘security’ committees in some pastoralist areas in response to the interest demonstrated by donors to support such initiatives. A review of Oxfam-Great Britain funded initiatives in northern Kenya found that the possibility of donor funding had led to parallel activities, poor coordination, and divisions (Oxfam, 2003). These bureaucratized civil society organizations (CSOs) often serve as point of engagement between government and donor agencies and pastoralist peoples. But the legitimacy and accountability of these organizations is questionable. Many Turkana herders rightly perceive peace structures established in recent years as initiated by outside actors and under the control of individuals eager to curry favour with larger powers. Having been established in a context of possible donor funding, bureaucratized CSOs are often disconnected from grassroots support and lack broad-based local constituencies. Howell and Pearce (2001) have observed that CSOs sacrifice some degree of autonomy by relying on donor funding. Not surprisingly, they find that such organizations often lack any social or political meaning for local communities. This was seen in Tanzania, where the donor desire to fund the land rights movement of Maasai and and Barabaig herders actually undermined the formation of pastoralist civil society. Igoe (2003) found that whereas the roots of the community-based movement there were in institutions and relationships that local people knew and understood, registered non-governmental organizations (NGOs) funded by donors transformed the movement into a grouping of apolitical institutions geared toward the priorities of funding bodies. Further, donor agency efforts to promote civil society involvement in reducing conflict may unintentionally erode the accountability of state institutions. Markakis contests that ‘[t]he

Lind: Pastoralist Livelihoods in Eastern Africa expanding scope of NGO activities (in pastoralist areas of eastern Africa) relieves the state from responsibility for performing its functions, reducing it to an ‘outsourcing’agency’ (Markakis, 2004: 29). Rather than build forms of popular accountability that are ultimately needed to realize a significant improvement in the human security of livestock keepers, implanting a peace infrastructure in pastoralist areas imposes the political priorities of the aid establishment.

Conclusion Attention to conflict reduction and peace building in development action in pastoralist areas signals a maturing of development responses to insecure

pastoralist livelihoods in eastern Africa. However, the approaches of aid and donor agencies are weakened by the predominant view of pastoralist conflict as competition over scarce resources and, tying into this view, efforts to establish an elaborate peace infrastructure to reconcile competing groups and inculcate a culture of peace. A positive trend in this debate is the desire of donor and aid agencies to support pastoralist livelihoods by stabilizing livestock production and promoting livestock keeping as a viable economic pursuit. Further initiatives in this area are needed alongside specific actions in support of the social and economic rights of the large and expanding population of destitute pastoralists.

References Buchanan-Smith, Margie and Jeremy Lind (2005) ‘A rmed Violence and Poverty in Northern Kenya: A case study for the armed violence and poverty initiative’. Centre for International Cooperation and Security, Department of Peace Studies, University of Bradford. Cullis, Adrian and Arnold Pacey (1992) A Development Dialogue: Rainwater harvesting inTurkana, London: ITDG Publishing. Hendrickson, Dylan, JeremyArmon and Robin Mearns (1998) ‘Conflict and Vulnerability to Famine: Livestock raiding in Turkana, Kenya’. Drylands Programme Issues Paper no. 80, London: International Institute for Environment and Development. Howell, Jude and Jenny Pearce (2001) Civil Society and Development: A critical exploration, Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Igoe, Jim (2003) ‘Scaling up Civil Society: Donor money, NGOs and the pastoralist land rights movement in Tanzania’, Development and Change 34(5): 863^85. Knighton, Ben (2002) ‘Historical Ethnography and the Collapse of Karamojong Culture: Premature reports of trends’. Paper presented at the African Studies Seminar, St. Antony’s College, University of Oxford, 13 June. Lamphear, John (1992) The ScatteringTime:Turkana responses to colonial rule, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Markakis, John (2004) Pastoralism on the Margin, London: Minority Rights Group International. Nori, Michele, Jason Switzer and Alec Crawford (2005) ‘Herding on the Brink: Towards a global survey of pastoral communities and conflict’. Geneva: International Institute for Sustainable Development. Oxfam (2003) ‘Oxfam GB-Funded Peace Building Initiatives in the Arid Districts of Kenya: Lessons and challenges’. Nairobi: Oxfam-Great Britain.

115