This article examines the process of securing land rights for pastoralists in Kenya, applying the concept of sedentism to understand the impact of two recent changes in Kenyan land governance. In 2010, the Government of Kenya passed a new constitution, which devolved government power to the local level. A declared aim was to give communities greater influence over governance of their lands. Then, in 2016, the Government passed the Community Land Act, which aims at formalising community ownership of land through group registration. Drawing on fieldwork among pastoralists living in Samburu County in Northern Kenya, we show that despite ostensibly aiming to empower local pastoralist communities and provide better recognition of their land rights, these two changes interact to promote the sedentarisation of pastoralists. The Community Land Act has treated communal grasslands as clusters of discrete parcels rather than as integrated rangeland ecosystems. In combination with devolution, this runs counter to the flexible and negotiated forms of land governance upon which pastoralists' livelihoods rely, thereby making them susceptible to sedentarism and dispossession.
{"title":"No Option but to Settle! The Community Land Act, Devolution and Pastoralism in Samburu County, Kenya","authors":"R. Hassan, K. Kanyinga, Iben Nathan","doi":"10.3197/np.2023.270207","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3197/np.2023.270207","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the process of securing land rights for pastoralists in Kenya, applying the concept of sedentism to understand the impact of two recent changes in Kenyan land governance. In 2010, the Government of Kenya passed a new constitution, which devolved government power\u0000 to the local level. A declared aim was to give communities greater influence over governance of their lands. Then, in 2016, the Government passed the Community Land Act, which aims at formalising community ownership of land through group registration. Drawing on fieldwork among pastoralists\u0000 living in Samburu County in Northern Kenya, we show that despite ostensibly aiming to empower local pastoralist communities and provide better recognition of their land rights, these two changes interact to promote the sedentarisation of pastoralists. The Community Land Act has treated communal\u0000 grasslands as clusters of discrete parcels rather than as integrated rangeland ecosystems. In combination with devolution, this runs counter to the flexible and negotiated forms of land governance upon which pastoralists' livelihoods rely, thereby making them susceptible to sedentarism and\u0000 dispossession.","PeriodicalId":19318,"journal":{"name":"Nomadic Peoples","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44019949","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Authorities have often seen pastoralist mobility as a challenge for public health and veterinary disease control. While the movement of humans and animals can influence disease transmission, authorities often overlook the complexity of these epidemiological relations and ignore the ecological and economic trade-offs of restricting pastoral mobility. This study reviews the Covid-19 response at the border between Turkana County (Kenya) and Moroto District (Uganda), with particular focus on the Kenyan side. Drawing on interviews with Kenyan public health officials, NGOs' practitioners and pastoral households, we examine the treatment of pastoralist mobility in the Covid-19 response. Our findings suggest that, while there is special attention to and investment in extending health services to pastoralists, most of the thinking focuses on their rural location and household dispersal, rather than their mobility. In fact, pastoral transhumance was at times treated as a threat to disease control and national public health while other forms of cross-border mobility continued. We apply the concept of 'sedentist bias' to suggest that this understanding of pastoral mobility has become entrenched in the technics of public health planning.
{"title":"Sedentist Epidemiology: COVID-19 Policies and Pastoral Mobility in Turkana County, Kenya","authors":"Cory Rodgers, Greta Semplici","doi":"10.3197/np.2023.270204","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3197/np.2023.270204","url":null,"abstract":"Authorities have often seen pastoralist mobility as a challenge for public health and veterinary disease control. While the movement of humans and animals can influence disease transmission, authorities often overlook the complexity of these epidemiological relations and ignore the\u0000 ecological and economic trade-offs of restricting pastoral mobility. This study reviews the Covid-19 response at the border between Turkana County (Kenya) and Moroto District (Uganda), with particular focus on the Kenyan side. Drawing on interviews with Kenyan public health officials, NGOs'\u0000 practitioners and pastoral households, we examine the treatment of pastoralist mobility in the Covid-19 response. Our findings suggest that, while there is special attention to and investment in extending health services to pastoralists, most of the thinking focuses on their rural location\u0000 and household dispersal, rather than their mobility. In fact, pastoral transhumance was at times treated as a threat to disease control and national public health while other forms of cross-border mobility continued. We apply the concept of 'sedentist bias' to suggest that this understanding\u0000 of pastoral mobility has become entrenched in the technics of public health planning.","PeriodicalId":19318,"journal":{"name":"Nomadic Peoples","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41351491","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article addresses the issue of sedentist bias in development by exploring nuances and contradictions in local social cohesion policies that target the Roma and Sinti population in Italy. European cohesion policies are embedded in a decades-long history of development discourses aimed at economically underdeveloped regions within Europe as well as vulnerable social groups. The latter include groups like Roma and Sinti, who, although historically part of the European social fabric, are not always treated as such due to their alleged legacy of nomadism. We address interactions and hiccups between the policies for Roma/Sinti implemented by Italian regions and municipalities and the directives for Roma inclusion stipulated by national and EU frameworks. We argue that the translation of these directives meets and intersects with a pre-existing legislative framework consisting of regional policies for Roma and Sinti based on soft recognition and mainstream policies that revolve around an administrative milieu that aims at controlling identity and mobility within national borders. We thus reflect on registered residence, an administrative device that is used as a selective tool for granting access to citizenship rights, and on its effects on Italy's local social cohesion policies for Roma and Sinti. The implementation of EU and national frameworks for Roma cohesion, which is our main argument, can paradoxically contribute to the exclusion and marginalisation of mobile peoples in Italy. This is due to a sedentist framework in which the mechanism of registered residence, a bureaucratic trap for many Roma and Sinti, becomes extremely apparent and prompts a series of more implicit biases in local social policies.
{"title":"The Bureaucratic Trap: Registered Residence and Sedentist Bias in Italian Social Cohesion Policies for Roma and Sinti","authors":"Stefania Pontrandolfo, Marco Solimene","doi":"10.3197/np.2023.270203","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3197/np.2023.270203","url":null,"abstract":"This article addresses the issue of sedentist bias in development by exploring nuances and contradictions in local social cohesion policies that target the Roma and Sinti population in Italy. European cohesion policies are embedded in a decades-long history of development discourses\u0000 aimed at economically underdeveloped regions within Europe as well as vulnerable social groups. The latter include groups like Roma and Sinti, who, although historically part of the European social fabric, are not always treated as such due to their alleged legacy of nomadism. We address interactions\u0000 and hiccups between the policies for Roma/Sinti implemented by Italian regions and municipalities and the directives for Roma inclusion stipulated by national and EU frameworks. We argue that the translation of these directives meets and intersects with a pre-existing legislative framework\u0000 consisting of regional policies for Roma and Sinti based on soft recognition and mainstream policies that revolve around an administrative milieu that aims at controlling identity and mobility within national borders. We thus reflect on registered residence, an administrative device that is\u0000 used as a selective tool for granting access to citizenship rights, and on its effects on Italy's local social cohesion policies for Roma and Sinti. The implementation of EU and national frameworks for Roma cohesion, which is our main argument, can paradoxically contribute to the exclusion\u0000 and marginalisation of mobile peoples in Italy. This is due to a sedentist framework in which the mechanism of registered residence, a bureaucratic trap for many Roma and Sinti, becomes extremely apparent and prompts a series of more implicit biases in local social policies.","PeriodicalId":19318,"journal":{"name":"Nomadic Peoples","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45141480","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Livestock identification and traceability systems (LITS) are an increasingly prominent component of national livestock development policies around the world. In theory, LITS allow governments to track and respond to disease and livestock theft efficiently. However, this paper argues that LITS are suffused with sedentist assumptions that are at odds with the livestock management practices of pastoralist communities. Drawing on qualitative interviews with implementing bureaucrats and affected pastoralist communities as well as one author's experience of growing up and managing cattle in a pastoralist community, we review the sedentist assumptions that animate the Namibian Livestock Identification and Traceability System (NamLITS) and describe how pastoralists in north-western Namibia perceive that NamLITS has affected their economic, social and political lives. We then show the strategies that pastoralists use to comply and circumvent NamLITS, and conclude with lessons for governments and development practitioners considering livestock tracing systems and mobile communities affected by them.
{"title":"Seeing Cattle like a State: Sedentist Assumptions of the Namibian Livestock Identification and Traceability System","authors":"Max Mauerman, Venomukona Tjiseua, Dylan W. Groves","doi":"10.3197/np.2023.270202","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3197/np.2023.270202","url":null,"abstract":"Livestock identification and traceability systems (LITS) are an increasingly prominent component of national livestock development policies around the world. In theory, LITS allow governments to track and respond to disease and livestock theft efficiently. However, this paper argues\u0000 that LITS are suffused with sedentist assumptions that are at odds with the livestock management practices of pastoralist communities. Drawing on qualitative interviews with implementing bureaucrats and affected pastoralist communities as well as one author's experience of growing up and managing\u0000 cattle in a pastoralist community, we review the sedentist assumptions that animate the Namibian Livestock Identification and Traceability System (NamLITS) and describe how pastoralists in north-western Namibia perceive that NamLITS has affected their economic, social and political lives.\u0000 We then show the strategies that pastoralists use to comply and circumvent NamLITS, and conclude with lessons for governments and development practitioners considering livestock tracing systems and mobile communities affected by them.","PeriodicalId":19318,"journal":{"name":"Nomadic Peoples","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43608168","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Antonio Allegretti, Policy and Practice in Rural Tanzania: Grazing, Fishing and Farming in the Local-Global Interface","authors":"J. Galaty","doi":"10.3197/np.2023.270209","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3197/np.2023.270209","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":19318,"journal":{"name":"Nomadic Peoples","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46692929","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The recognition that pastoralism is well-suited to conditions of variability and uncertainty is growing among academics and policy-makers. With the notion that schooled individuals with pastoralist backgrounds could influence political decisions regarding support and providing services for mobile pastoralism, this paper questions the sedentist bias among schooled Tuareg in the Agadez region. In the first part, the history of schooling for nomads in Niger is discussed in the context of schooling for mobile people. Compared to experiences elsewhere, boarding schools can either encourage sedentarisation or support mobility. The same holds in the case of service centres for mobile populations, which are making their way back to regional planning. Ideas regarding the development of schooled Tuareg from caravan and gardening backgrounds in Aïr and from pastoralist communities in the west and south of Aïr are not only influenced by schooling, but relate to different development trends and depend on individual experiences, identity and affective relation to pastoralism. While on the one hand, certain schooled Tuaregs have embraced a sedentist vision of development, those who enjoy active relationships with nomadic pastoralists nonetheless recognise the value of their customary knowledge and practices, including herd mobility. Schools could participate in transmitting a favourable image of pastoralism as a productive system for sustainable futures and thereby equip future generations of diverse policymakers to engage meaningfully with mobile pastoralists.
{"title":"Schooled Tuaregs' Engagement with Mobile Pastoralism in the Agadez Region (Niger): Avoidable Sedentism and Alternative Forms of Cooperation","authors":"Sarah Lunaček","doi":"10.3197/np.2023.270205","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3197/np.2023.270205","url":null,"abstract":"The recognition that pastoralism is well-suited to conditions of variability and uncertainty is growing among academics and policy-makers. With the notion that schooled individuals with pastoralist backgrounds could influence political decisions regarding support and providing services\u0000 for mobile pastoralism, this paper questions the sedentist bias among schooled Tuareg in the Agadez region. In the first part, the history of schooling for nomads in Niger is discussed in the context of schooling for mobile people. Compared to experiences elsewhere, boarding schools can either\u0000 encourage sedentarisation or support mobility. The same holds in the case of service centres for mobile populations, which are making their way back to regional planning. Ideas regarding the development of schooled Tuareg from caravan and gardening backgrounds in Aïr and from pastoralist\u0000 communities in the west and south of Aïr are not only influenced by schooling, but relate to different development trends and depend on individual experiences, identity and affective relation to pastoralism. While on the one hand, certain schooled Tuaregs have embraced a sedentist vision\u0000 of development, those who enjoy active relationships with nomadic pastoralists nonetheless recognise the value of their customary knowledge and practices, including herd mobility. Schools could participate in transmitting a favourable image of pastoralism as a productive system for sustainable\u0000 futures and thereby equip future generations of diverse policymakers to engage meaningfully with mobile pastoralists.","PeriodicalId":19318,"journal":{"name":"Nomadic Peoples","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49127078","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Mongolian government pursues various objectives that are often assumed to benefit citizens, including socio-economic development, biodiversity conservation and innovative technologies in the agricultural sector to adapt to climate change. But, for pastoralists, these activities have allowed the appropriation of pastoral lands from their home jurisdictions, the process of which is often murky and ambiguous. The vision for development held by different international and national agents sometimes fails to recognise the complexity inherent in converting pastoral land for alternative economic and conservation development. This paper examines a recent legal battle focused on the Herlen Bayan-Ulaan State Reserve Pasture Area, where different stakeholders put forward contested claims of authority over rural jurisdictional territories. The conflict is rooted in the ambiguous and conflicting co-existence of liberal and statist approaches to socio-economic policies applied by the Mongolian government. Whereas the socialist period system's imposition of exclusive state control reduced local actors' (government and residents) control and authority over resources governance, the post-socialist period system promoted 'alternative economic and conservation activities' and protected state and individual property rights, leaving mobile pastoralists with highly ambiguous claims. This paper argues that the state ought to have a specific role of providing an adequate legislative and executive framework to support more complex interdependent multi-scale pastoral institutions. This paper describes the changing role of the state in land governance, wherein the state has assumed all management and financial authority while subjecting pastoralists to conflicting legislative and executive policies. This has eroded the local systems of land and resource governance and created an open access scenario, allowing appropriation of jurisdictional pastoral lands. This trend of exclusive state control has the implication of contradicting and dismantling a longstanding interdependent pastoral institutional environment and has been counterproductive to enhancing natural resource management and the adaptive capacity of local actors to climate change.
{"title":"Legal Ambiguity and Land Dispossession: Multi-Scale Conflicting Views on Territorial Authority at the Herlen Bayan-Ulaan State Reserve Pasture Area, Mongolia.","authors":"Sandagsuren Undargaa","doi":"10.3197/np.2023.270206","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3197/np.2023.270206","url":null,"abstract":"The Mongolian government pursues various objectives that are often assumed to benefit citizens, including socio-economic development, biodiversity conservation and innovative technologies in the agricultural sector to adapt to climate change. But, for pastoralists, these activities\u0000 have allowed the appropriation of pastoral lands from their home jurisdictions, the process of which is often murky and ambiguous. The vision for development held by different international and national agents sometimes fails to recognise the complexity inherent in converting pastoral land\u0000 for alternative economic and conservation development. This paper examines a recent legal battle focused on the Herlen Bayan-Ulaan State Reserve Pasture Area, where different stakeholders put forward contested claims of authority over rural jurisdictional territories. The conflict is rooted\u0000 in the ambiguous and conflicting co-existence of liberal and statist approaches to socio-economic policies applied by the Mongolian government. Whereas the socialist period system's imposition of exclusive state control reduced local actors' (government and residents) control and authority\u0000 over resources governance, the post-socialist period system promoted 'alternative economic and conservation activities' and protected state and individual property rights, leaving mobile pastoralists with highly ambiguous claims. This paper argues that the state ought to have a specific role\u0000 of providing an adequate legislative and executive framework to support more complex interdependent multi-scale pastoral institutions. This paper describes the changing role of the state in land governance, wherein the state has assumed all management and financial authority while subjecting\u0000 pastoralists to conflicting legislative and executive policies. This has eroded the local systems of land and resource governance and created an open access scenario, allowing appropriation of jurisdictional pastoral lands. This trend of exclusive state control has the implication of contradicting\u0000 and dismantling a longstanding interdependent pastoral institutional environment and has been counterproductive to enhancing natural resource management and the adaptive capacity of local actors to climate change.","PeriodicalId":19318,"journal":{"name":"Nomadic Peoples","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42805298","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Sedentism as Doxa: Biases against Mobile Peoples in Law, Policy and Practice","authors":"Greta Semplici, Cory Rodgers","doi":"10.3197/np.2023.270201","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3197/np.2023.270201","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":19318,"journal":{"name":"Nomadic Peoples","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45545057","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Hybrid land governance, mosaics, polycentrism have become ways to describe contemporary rangeland settings - ways of responding to uncertainties through flexible institutions, overlapping boundaries and an assembled, plural bricolage of practices. However, this is frequently thought to be recent, often arising from more formal, regulated systems, whether state, private or communal, and with well-defined land tenure regimes. This paper argues that hybridity (in various forms) has always been present in Amdo Tibet, despite the political changes over time and space. Hybridity is a necessary response to uncertainty and central to the utilisation of variable resources, which is the core strategy of pastoralism. Yet the form of hybridity varies as it must be constructed in particular historical circumstances, constrained by political economic conditions between the feudal, collectivist, liberalised eras. Today's hybridity - and so contemporary rangeland use and management strategies - must be understood in this historical context, as an accretion of practices and strategies that have emerged over different eras.
{"title":"Over Time and Space: Hybrid Rangeland Governance in Amdo Tibet","authors":"Palden Tsering (huadancairang)","doi":"10.3197/np.2023.270105","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3197/np.2023.270105","url":null,"abstract":"Hybrid land governance, mosaics, polycentrism have become ways to describe contemporary rangeland settings - ways of responding to uncertainties through flexible institutions, overlapping boundaries and an assembled, plural bricolage of practices. However, this is frequently thought\u0000 to be recent, often arising from more formal, regulated systems, whether state, private or communal, and with well-defined land tenure regimes. This paper argues that hybridity (in various forms) has always been present in Amdo Tibet, despite the political changes over time and space. Hybridity\u0000 is a necessary response to uncertainty and central to the utilisation of variable resources, which is the core strategy of pastoralism. Yet the form of hybridity varies as it must be constructed in particular historical circumstances, constrained by political economic conditions between the\u0000 feudal, collectivist, liberalised eras. Today's hybridity - and so contemporary rangeland use and management strategies - must be understood in this historical context, as an accretion of practices and strategies that have emerged over different eras.","PeriodicalId":19318,"journal":{"name":"Nomadic Peoples","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43317507","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：