From spears and shields to hoeing and hawking:
The future of pastoralism and why pastoralists must look for alternatives
Ronald B. Ndesanjo
If one would describe a livestock keeping livelihood system of Maasai communities in northern Tanzania, the concept of resilience would most probably come on top. Resilience, as defined by W. Neil Adger in his 2006 paper, Vulnerability, refers to “shocks and stresses a social and ecological system experiences and its capacity to adapt to it.” Maasai pastoralists have been known particularly for their resilient livestock-based livelihood system.
In the literature, this livelihood system is usually referred to as pastoralism or nomadic pastoralism depending on what aspect of the system one is making reference to. For the sake of this piece, I adopt the definition by Ced Hesse and James MacGregor in their 2006 paper, “Pastoralism: drylands’ invisible asset?”:
“Pastoralism is a form of livestock production or traditionally arranged ranching especially where mobility (a common feature among pastoral systems) is a key option. This is a livelihood system based on livestock keeping in conjunction with other undertakings as a reasonable economic engagement embedded in firm socio-cultural and environmental objectives.”
For centuries, the pastoral Maasai of Northern Tanzania (but they are everywhere now; much on this later) have managed to sustain their livelihood system (pastoralism) regardless of a range of perturbations, particularly environmental (including climate) change. Central to this form of resilience is pastoral mobility. It entails moving sections of herds to different places in search of key resources; water and pasture. This is not (as most still regard it) wandering around of pastoralists with their herds. It is a complex and highly organised traditional system known as transhumance that has been crafted and perfected over centuries. Together with that, pastoralism has been held together by a social system of patronage depicted, for instance, by cattle loaning and barter trading.
Mobility, which is the lifeline of pastoral livelihoods, is finally falling apart, following a substantially diminished capability of pastoralists to sustain it. In this blogpost, I highlight a number of factors that drive this trend. These include: government’s attitude towards pastoralists and their livelihood system(s), land compartmentalization, land use change in pastoral systems, population growth, change of lifestyle among pastoral Maasai, and climate change.
Throughout the post-independence period the Government of Tanzania (Tanganyika for some three years or so) has demonstrated a negative outlook towards the pastoral way of life. This situation is likened mainly to colonial legacy and “modernity” thinking that has informed most political and governance decisions since independence. During the colonial era pastoralists encountered a lot of problems with colonial government(s). One dimension of the animosity was colonialists’ attempt to integrate pastoralists into their economic system (largely a capitalist mode of production) where production is meant for consumption, surplus, and profit making. To the contrary, the motive of pastoralists has never been to produce for the market. In pastoralists’ eyes, cattle is a way of life if not life itself!
This thinking was adopted by newly independent governments mainly because what had really changed was the people who were running the government. Economic and political systems were more or less reflective of former colonial government(s). As such, pastoralists and post-independence government encountered similar disputes between them. The government has always perceived pastoralists as backward, anti-development, and destructive to the environment.
In view of that, service-led development, for instance, is an area that pastoralists have clashed with the government. The government’s thinking about development has always been informed by this notion of “modernity of things”. Characteristic of this is persistent efforts to sedentarize the pastoral people (adversely affecting mobility) so that development in form of piped water, schools, hospitals, extension services, etc., can be brought to them. “Operation Imparnati” in the 1970s and 1980s and cattle branding in 2016 and 2017 are cases in point.
Another driving factor is compartmentalization of administrative boundaries at local (village) levels. Administrative boundaries in Tanzania are defined by village (the smallest unit) all the way up to the nation-state. It is a common thing in the development process to form new villages, districts, and regions out of existing ones. The reasons are several; political, economic, geographical, etc. What is really a problem (particularly in the pastoral context) is the restricted access associated with this trend.
Now it has become a norm for village A to restrict village B from accessing its resources e.g. land, water, and pasture, especially in times of scarcity. It is even worse when it comes to cross-border interactions, especially among pastoral Maasai to whom national borders are an alien thing. Since pastoralism strives on communal patronage in terms of resource use, the compartmentalization works to its detriment. It is tempting to add the conservation dimension here but let us save that for another blog post.
Between 2013 and 2016, I was conducting research in the Simanjiro District in northern Tanzania. This is a commonly known pastoralist dominated area. But, given the land use changes I witnessed, there is no doubt Simanjiro is increasingly becoming an agro-pastoral district. Emboreet division, where one finds the Simanjiro plains (crucial wildlife breeding and livestock grazing area), was increasingly being transformed into a cropland. This has serious irreversible consequences on the quality of soils and hence its productivity. As such, grazing patterns and even wildlife breeding (in this case wildebeest from Tarangire National Park) will (if not yet) adversely be interrupted.
Maasai people are famously known for being proud and protective of their culture no matter when or where they are. This is something some people will agree to. But that may not necessarily be the case now since they are also embracing change, albeit not as selectively as they used to. Young Maasai people, for instance, are increasingly abandoning rural life to look for alternative livelihoods in peri-urban and urban areas.
One of the push factors is that pastoralism no longer serves as a reliable livelihood option for the reasons highlighted here and several others. Together with that is the further exposure to “modernity” which, in most cases, is associated with urban life. Cattle herding is the responsibility of male youths, so, if you lose a segment of these people to other livelihoods in urban areas, the sector suffers substantially.
It should also be noted that population is growing rapidly in pastoral areas. Together with natural increase, the growth is largely driven by immigrants who move to semi-arid (predominantly pastoral) lands in search of areas to open new farms. In the case of Simanjiro, for example, there is a migration pattern where people from Arusha region (a Maa speaking agro-pastoral community commonly referred to as Waarusha) are moving to Simanjiro in search of farmland. The pull factor is sufficiently available i.e. (vast) land which is apparently virgin and flat (suitable for mechanised tilling). To a certain degree this is creating land pressure (and potential for land disputes); one thing that does not mix well with pastoral mobility.
What makes matters worse is climate change. On top of the socio-economic and political dynamics noted above, climate change has made it even harder for pastoralists to sustain their livelihood system. Droughts, for example, have become more intense and frequent. Rainfall patterns have changed thus adversely affecting mobility patterns and livestock productivity. Not only that, extreme climatic events are increasingly being associated with heavy, but very short-lived, rains that cause flooding and its associated impacts on livestock, particularly deaths by diseases and drowning (although rare).
I cannot conclude with certainty that pastoralism, as we have known it, will completely disappear. However, it is quite clear that it is undergoing substantial changes. It is very likely that pastoralism will shift from a complex socio-cultural, economic, and ecological system to a mere commercial entity where a few wealthy and highly politically connected individuals (Cattle Barons) will control the livestock (cattle) value chain. This will see a lot of small holder herders being reduced (from cattle owners) to mere herds persons or completely pushed out of the system.
