92 92 4.0 UGANDA Introduction Uganda’s rangelands cover an estimated area of 84,000 km sq and contain a population of around 6.6 million (Kisamba-Mugerwa 2001). This makes up 42% of the country's total land area of 199,710 sq km (with another 36,300 sq km as water) (total population in 2006 was 27,356,900). Arable land is said to cover 25,885 sq km 10.65% permanent crops and only 90 sq km was irrigated in 1998 (Government of Uganda Home Portal 2011). The rangelands receive rainfall between 500-1000 mm annually, which has high variability (Kisamba-Mugerwa 2001; MAAIF 2002 in Orindi and Eriksen 2005). Pastoral areas are mainly found in what has been called the ‘cattle corridor’ (see Figure 4.3), which forms an unbroken stretch of land that divides the other two areas of the country dominated by crop production. The ‘cattle corridor’ runs from the southwest to the northeast, from the Rwanda border to the Sudan/Kenya borders. Here a number of different pastoral groups exist including the Bahima, Banyoro, Baganda, Baruli, Itesot, Langi. In the northeast is found Karamoja region and the Karimojong 1 , Dodoth and the Jie amongst others. The livestock sub-sector contributes about 9% of the country's GDP (MAAIF 2002). Ruminants constitute 86% of total livestock (ibid) and are kept by pastoralists living in the rangelands, which support 90% of the cattle population. About 85% of the total marketed milk and beef in the country is produced from indigenous cattle, which feed on rangeland pasture. Goats and sheep have an untapped export potential to the Middle East. Hides and skins have for long been important sources of foreign exchange for the Ugandan economy (Kisamba-Mugerwa 2001). See Figure 4.1 for a map of livestock production systems in Uganda. Historical context Until the 1900s land in Uganda was held through customary tenure (see Rugadya 2003). However under the British colonists large tracts of land were awarded to absentee landlords under freehold (mailo) tenure. The colonial government also created grazing corridors and invested in water sources and infrastructure (SALDO 2009). Since this time the co-existence of a number of tenure systems, has meant overlapping rights to the same piece of land. The 1975 nationalisation of land under Idi Amin added to this complexity, although it was overturned by the 1995 Constitution. In some cases, attempted reforms have increased conflict by applying simplistic legal categories of ‘owner’ and ‘user’ to complex and fluctuating interrelationships especially on mailo tenure (Rugadya 2009). Since the colonial period successive governments have focused on the development of commercial livestock ranching disregarding the significance of the traditional livestock production sector (Frank 2001; Frank 1996; Bazaara1994). Individual 1 The Karimojong are the formerly unified ethnic group consisting of the Pian, Matheniko and Bokora (see Ben Knighton, 2005, p 19 in Stites and Akabwai, 2009), as opposed to the Karamajong who are the inhabitants of Karamoja and/or the Karamoja Cluster (which falls over the borders of Kenya, Sudan and Ethiopia.
Transcript
92
92
4.0 UGANDA Introduction Uganda’s rangelands cover an estimated area of 84,000 km sq and contain a population of around 6.6 million (Kisamba-Mugerwa 2001). This makes up 42% of the country's total land area of 199,710 sq km (with another 36,300 sq km as water) (total population in 2006 was 27,356,900). Arable land is said to cover 25,885 sq km 10.65% permanent crops and only 90 sq km was irrigated in 1998 (Government of Uganda Home Portal 2011). The rangelands receive rainfall between 500-1000 mm annually, which has high variability (Kisamba-Mugerwa 2001; MAAIF 2002 in Orindi and Eriksen 2005). Pastoral areas are mainly found in what has been called the ‘cattle corridor’ (see Figure 4.3), which forms an unbroken stretch of land that divides the other two areas of the country dominated by crop production. The ‘cattle corridor’ runs from the southwest to the northeast, from the Rwanda border to the Sudan/Kenya borders. Here a number of different pastoral groups exist including the Bahima, Banyoro, Baganda, Baruli, Itesot, Langi. In the northeast is found Karamoja region and the Karimojong1, Dodoth and the Jie amongst others. The livestock sub-sector contributes about 9% of the country's GDP (MAAIF 2002). Ruminants constitute 86% of total livestock (ibid) and are kept by pastoralists living in the rangelands, which support 90% of the cattle population. About 85% of the total marketed milk and beef in the country is produced from indigenous cattle, which feed on rangeland pasture. Goats and sheep have an untapped export potential to the Middle East. Hides and skins have for long been important sources of foreign exchange for the Ugandan economy (Kisamba-Mugerwa 2001). See Figure 4.1 for a map of livestock production systems in Uganda. Historical context Until the 1900s land in Uganda was held through customary tenure (see Rugadya 2003). However under the British colonists large tracts of land were awarded to absentee landlords under freehold (mailo) tenure. The colonial government also created grazing corridors and invested in water sources and infrastructure (SALDO 2009). Since this time the co-existence of a number of tenure systems, has meant overlapping rights to the same piece of land. The 1975 nationalisation of land under Idi Amin added to this complexity, although it was overturned by the 1995 Constitution. In some cases, attempted reforms have increased conflict by applying simplistic legal categories of ‘owner’ and ‘user’ to complex and fluctuating interrelationships especially on mailo tenure (Rugadya 2009). Since the colonial period successive governments have focused on the development of commercial livestock ranching disregarding the significance of the traditional livestock production sector (Frank 2001; Frank 1996; Bazaara1994). Individual 1 The Karimojong are the formerly unified ethnic group consisting of the Pian, Matheniko and Bokora (see Ben Knighton, 2005, p 19 in Stites and Akabwai, 2009), as opposed to the Karamajong who are the inhabitants of Karamoja and/or the Karamoja Cluster (which falls over the borders of Kenya, Sudan and Ethiopia.
93
93
private property has been privileged over common property regimes. Freehold tenure and land markets have been put forward as progressive and efficient structures for economic development. Thus, customary tenure systems that permit traditional pastoralism found their areas restricted as common grazing lands became individualised private property (Rugadya 2009).
Figure 4.1 Livestock production systems in Uganda (Source: www.wri.org) In the 1960s large areas of land (mainly in the ‘cattle corridor’) were earmarked for ranch development financed by USAID and WB. Many pastoralists were dispossessed of their land including in Singo (34 ranches), Bunyoro (37 ranches), Buruli (27 ranches), Ankoka (50 ranches) Mbarara, Masaka (59 ranches), Rakai and Naksongola and for some pastoralists this initiated a protracted series of wanderings and displacements (Rugadya 2009; Bazaara1994). Many of the ranches were never fully used and many pastoralists ended up ‘squatting’ on them, though paying ranch owners for the use of grazing and water – which for some added up to about 2% of their livestock resources (Bazaara 1994). This tendency continued even under the Land Reform Decree of 1975 (that decreed
94
94
all land to be state owned). This decree triggered the grabbing of grazing land by speculators through long-term leaseholds, especially in the southwest region, thus “progressive ranchers” fenced off the hitherto common access resources (including grazing areas, water areas, cattle tracks, and salt licks) pushing pastoralists onto poorer quality areas (Rugadya 2009). Others were evicted from lands due to the establishment of National Parks (see below). When the National Resistance Movement (NRM) came to power in 1986, it formulated an economic recovery programme focusing on improving and transforming existing livestock production. The government provided some new facilities and infrastructure such as veterinary services, diagnostic facilities, water, and trained animal health workers (Frank, 2001). After 1996 the government adopted an agenda based on ‘agricultural modernisation,’ which aimed to reverse a perceived decline in livestock numbers, settle nomadic pastoralists, and transform them into crop cultivators. Resettlement was seen by the government as a panacea to resource management problems associated with the practice of nomadism which the NRM considered to be among the leading obstacles to the development of a livestock production sector in Uganda (Frank, 1996; 2001:103 in Rugadya 2009). In the 1990s the government privatised three further ranches that were grazing lands. The continued individualisation of land ownership threatened the rights of access to common grazing land and water and the livelihoods of pastoral communities (Rugadya et al 2010). It led to forced concentrations of livestock, triggering environmental degradation (Kakuru et al 2004). In February 1992, President Museveni told two public rallies in Masaka District that the government would soon come up with a law prohibiting nomadism because said it led to the spread of cattle diseases and overstocking and overgrazing (‘Nomadism will be outlawed-Museveni’ in New Vision, 1992 noted in Frank, 2001:129).2 Current policies and implementation Today, the government continues to purse liberalisation and privatisation as underpinning pillars of its strategies for development and poverty reduction (including the Poverty Eradication Action Plan – PEAP) (2004/4-2007/8). Agriculture including pastoralism is seen as part of this. The Plan for Modernization of Agriculture (PMA) (2000) is grounded in the ideology of transforming agriculture from a largely subsistence to a commercial sector (Rugadya 2006). Livestock is given attention in Uganda’s National Development Plan (2010/11 – 2014/15), which seeks annual growth of 5.4 percent in the sector, up from an average of 3.0 percent in recent years (NPA 2010 in Benson and Mugarura 2010). However the attitude from the Head of State right down to district authority level is that the pastoralists need to settle and modernise (Kirbride and Grahn 2008). The livestock sector is severely underfunded. In a discussion with government officials Mrs Janet Museveni, First Lady and Minister of State for Karamoja stated that Uganda should progress to the “harnessing [of] nature to supply the cattle corridor people’s needs by damming water for use in the dry season, growing, conserving and
2 Though this was never put into practice.
95
95
harvesting pasture plus proper land use and environment management”. In this way, the “Karamojongs will settle down and develop slowly but surely.” She argued that the ”dangers of nomadism as shown by the Karamoja situation, outweigh its benefits and Government through the Karamoja Integrated Disarmament and Development Plan (KIDDP) and other programmes is committed to promoting long term food security and development” (Museveni 2010). Pastoralists have very little voice in decision making processes. Their livelihood is considered archaic and undesirable. There is poor understanding of the benefits of pastoralism amongst politicians, policy makers and technocrats resulting in little understanding of the policy, legislative and strategy needs for translating such as the PEAP and broader pastoralist priorities into concrete interventions and outcomes. There is no holistic national strategy to support pastoralism3 and pastoralist development and instead there are ad hoc, fragmented and often poorly constructed and resourced interventions for pastoralist development (Ohenjo 2006). The 1995 Constitution provides that all land belongs to the citizens of Uganda under four main tenure systems – customary and leasehold, freehold and mailo. The Constitution provides all holders of customary land with the right to obtain a Certificate of Customary Ownership (CCO) and the Land Act 1998 specifies the procedure for how such certificates should be issued. The process is overseen by Land Boards in each district and Land Tribunals should resolve disputes (Rugadya 2003). The Act provides for issue of individual, family and communal certificates taken as conclusive evidence of the customary rights and interests endorsed on the certificate.4 The Land Act 1998 (Section 16 133) provides for the formation of Communal Land Associations for the purposes of ownership and management of land. A Communal Land Association may own land under a CCO, leasehold or a freehold. Members of the association can also hold some or all of the land within it, in an individual capacity while other parts are set aside for common use under a common Land Management Scheme. It should however be noted that, registration of communal interests or group rights in natural resources and other common pool resources is not in the names of the Communal Land Associations but rather in the management committee under the Common Land Management Scheme who exercise its power for and on behalf of all members of the Association (Rugadya et al 2010; Iriama 2010). Although the 1998 Land Act has provisions for setting aside land for common use, national regulations and standards are lacking. In addition, the establishment of a Land Fund provides financial support for the landless to buy land from absentee landlords. However this has not been implemented. As a result, both disputes within 3 Though a rangeland management policy is being redrafted. 4 In order to apply for a CCO, an applicant must first submit his or her application form, together with the required fee, to the Area Land Committee where the land is situated. The Land Committee is then supposed to survey the land in question and confirm its boundaries. The Committee should also post a notice, in prescribed form, in a prominent public place in the parish in which the land is situated. The notice should invite all concerned persons to a meeting, not less than two weeks from the date on which it was posted, to consider the claim. Claims of any other person affected by the land, for example through rights of way, must also be heard and the Land Committee can adjourn its proceedings if necessary to carry out more detailed investigations. The District Land Board can then decide whether or not to issue a CCO (Rugadya et al 2010).
96
96
agro-pastoral communities and with other communities are on the rise (Rugadya 2009). The low levels of registration to date are associated with high costs of registration especially survey, low capacity for statutory land administration and the lack of staff in the department plus ignorance makes the situation worse (Rugadya et al 2010). In reference to pastoral land rights many of the steps described above are not easily transferred to a pastoral setting, and thus the suitability of the process has been questioned (Iyodu 2009). In addition, another major problem is that people have inadequate knowledge of the existence of the laws and policies (Iriama 2010). This has led to both formal and informal land management systems operating concurrently. Where customary institutions are still strong, area Land Committees tend to write down and formalise what elders decide. If land is needed by local councils to establish any community infrastructure either schools, health units or even administrative centres like parish headquarters, the elders are approached with the request and then the decision to avail land for such purposes is made by the elders in consultation with people occupying or using the land. However the authority and power of the elders is continuously eroding due to the changing socio-economic situation with land sales taking place without their knowledge (Rugadya et al 2010). Conservation Uganda has a network of 10 national parks and many other protected areas. These include the Murchison Falls NP established in 1926 as a game reserve; Queen Elizabeth NP (1978 km sq) established in 1972; Semuliki NP (220 km sq) established in 1993; and Lake Mburo NP (370 km sq) created in 1982; all of which are within the cattle corridor area; and Kidepo Valley NP established in the 1960s (1442 km sq) found in Karamoja. All of these occupy pastoral lands. The establishment of the Parks has had a major impact on pastoral land use, since all human activities with the exception of those connected with the management or utilisation of wildlife resources, were strictly prohibited (Rugadya 2006). However enforcement of boundaries has not always occurred so access to grazing and water has been possible at times. Between 1972 and the early 1990s, protected areas and land for conservation was extensively encroached and settled due to state neglect and inability to effectively take charge of the large tracts of land despite having designated the land as ‘protected.’ In some Parks such as Kidepo, agreements were made with pastoralists to allow limited grazing (Dyer et al 2008). In 1996, Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) undertook a field survey that confirmed over 65,000 persons were illegally residing in protected areas (Rugadya et al 2010). Rangeland fragmentation in Karamoja Region5 Karamoja is home to just under a million people (2002 census) and covers around
5 It should be noted that a disproportionate amount of literature was found on the Karamoja region rather than other pastoral areas in Uganda and thus this section is larger than the following one discussing the southern and western areas. This should not be seen to suggest that the author considers other pastoral areas are any less important than Karamoja but rather an indication of a lack of research, documentation and understanding of land use changes and impacts there.
97
97
27,000 sq km (10% of the country). The main ethnic groups found here are the Dodoth (in north), the Jie (in centre) and the Karimojong (centre-south), and within these are nine different tribal groups. Karamoja consists of seven administrative districts (Abim, Kaabong, Kotido, Moroto, Amudat, Napak and Nakapipirit) (though the division/creation of new districts is ongoing) (Stites et al 2010). The main activity is pastoralism6 and agro-pastoralism. Movement across international borders is common (Dyer et al 2008). Since colonial times government authorities have viewed the region as a land of lawlessness and primitive culture, inhabited by warrior-like people who have destabilised neighboring communities. Due to its geographical location, Karamoja has also been seen as a strategic frontier, and thus, its perceived disorder is viewed as doubly dangerous (in Iriama 2010). Having failed to contain the Karimojong and other groups in the area politically, the British colonial administration enacted the Cattle Grazing Act in 1945 to effect taxes. This Act has not been repealed and when enforced is done so in its original form. The Act limits the number of cattle that can be grazed on a given area of land. In addition the Special Regions Act enacted in 1958 can declare any place a ‘prohibited area’ closed to livestock and humans without a permit (Iyodu 2009).7 In 1964, the Karamoja Act gave the region special status in the areas of administration and development. This status was short lived as Idi Amin repealed the Act upon assuming power in 1971. At that stage there was still a sizeable population of Pokot living in the region, however a burst of raids by the Karimojong and Turkana initiated a movement of the majority of Pokot into Kenya, and from there they conducted raids back into Uganda. Today some Pokot are still found in Amudat district but move between Kenya and Uganda utilising this movement in order to maximise access to grazing and protection during insecurity (SALDO 2009). The present NRM government reinstated the special status for Karamoja and established the Karamoja Development Agency (KDA), by Statute 4 of 1987. In addition, the Government established the office of Minister of State for Karamoja under the Office of the Prime Minister in 2002, and as of May 2011 has a full cabinet docket. In 2009 the Karamoja Integrated Disarmament and Development Programme (KIDDP) was established. But despite the treatment of Karamoja as a
6 For a detailed description of traditional grazing practices see Oba 2009. 7 The Act criminalises grazing on any land declared by a veterinary officer or district administration as a ‘prohibited area’. A district administration or veterinary officer is authorised to dictate the maximum number of cattle that can be grazed on any given area of land. Contravention of these provisions results in impounding of cattle, which may be sold and proceeds thereof disposed as the Minister deems fit. A person convicted under the Act is liable to payment of a fine or to imprisonment or both. The Special Regions Act enacted in 1958 also operates today with few modifications. This allows the declaration of any place a ‘prohibited area’ and closed to any movement of animals and humans without a permit. Notably, the new provisions are arguably more stringent than those established by the colonial administration. Aside from imposing a ‘collective fine’ (which usually constitutes confiscation of cattle), an officer presiding over a case of prohibited entry and exit from a special region may order for the destruction of huts, tents or any other enclosure or property of any person who either entered or exited the special region as additional punitive measures (Iyodu 2009).
98
98
special region, development policies have generally undermined pastoralism in Karamoja (Stites et al 2007; Iyodu 2009). And today Karamoja is said to be the most ‘least developed’ region in Uganda with an estimated 82% of the population living in poverty. Approximately 1,100,000 cattle and 2,070,000 sheep and goats are kept there (Powell 2010). Rainfall is too erratic for reliable crop cultivation (averaging 350 to 750 mm per annum) in much of the area. Rainfall is highly seasonal, coming mostly in torrential downpours that last for several hours resulting in flooding. The western part of the region receives significantly more rain allowing some crop cultivation. Livestock are moved seasonally between the wetter (agricultural livelihood zones), and the dry season (agropastoral and pastoral livelihood zones) gazing areas, and intercropped agricultural production includes sorghum, millet, maize, and various other crops for household consumption and cash income (Browne and Glaeser 2010). Access to and use of natural resources including water, pasture, trees, soils, minerals and wildfoods is critical for lives and livelihoods in this region (Stites et al 2010). Overgrazing in the rangelands is found around settlements and watering points, and a depletion of underground water aquifers and reservoirs characterise the Karamoja environment (Rugadya 2009). However, a dual production system has maximised herd productivity. Manyattas are semi-permanent homesteads usually found near areas used for cultivation. The kraals are mobile livestock camps, and are inhabited by a shifting population of adolescent males and females, women, men (including male elders) and children. In previous generations, a group would follow the same approximate migration pattern each year, with variations based on water and pasture conditions. Regular movement patterns, however, became curtailed with the increase of cross-border and internal raids in the 1970s (Stites et al 2007). The Karimojong also practice ‘home gardens’ (nikiror) that are private land located within a short distance of the main settlement managed by women. These are unfenced but boundaries are known. Use of the gardens may be lent to others. The gardens are a symbol of household independence. Enclosures may also be set up for sick or weak animals. These tend to be managed by men (Oba 2009). A map of migration routes and kraal locations is given in Figure 1.1 (in Section 1.0). The different groups within the area have enjoyed spells of good relations in the past. For example, the Matheniko, and Jie often joinied the Turkana in grazing areas especially during the dry season (SALDO 2009). However, insecurity has brought tighter borders and strained relationships among groups within and adjacent to Karamoja. Loss of lives and destruction of livelihoods have become a pattern of life (Stites et al 2007). Cattle raiding and conflict Indeed, in Karamoja insecurity (the threat of death and/or rape under enemy hands) was given as the primary reason why natural resources including water and pasture cannot be accessed (Stites et al 2007). The growth of violent raiding of livestock and its increasing commercialisation is probably the most disruptive change that the Karimojong face and has highly negative impacts on the livelihood practices of the majority of people. Traditionally cattle raiding was carried out on a relatively small-
99
99
scale for the building up of livestock for a dowry or for social prestige. Today with the proliferation of firearms into the area (being on an arms trafficking route involving Sudan, Ethiopia and the Kenya-Somalia frontiers) together with the interests of outsiders, it has become a dangerous and serious business (Browne and Glaeser 2010). The marginalisation of customary conflict resolution processes and the weakening of customary authorities have increased the lack of control (Mkutu 2009). This evolution in raiding has led to increases in loss of life and aggregate loss of assets. In addition thousands of people (and in particular women and children) have migrated out of the area to towns such as Kampala (Sundal in press). The government has attempted several disarmament programmes, which have generally failed because disarmament has not been simultaneous and uniform across all groups. This has fuelled a situation of unbalanced military power (Knighton in press). Restrictions were imposed on movement of livestock between districts and across borders in early 2000s. In 2005 GoU intensified this initiative during the forced disarmament. This served to limit livestock access to pastures and water and disrupted normal dry season grazing patterns. It has also disrupted household access to grain and livestock market opportunities (Browne and Glaeser 2010). Women and children who still enter these ‘no-go’ areas for resource extraction are reportedly subjected to rape, kidnapping and killing (Sites et al 2007). The most recent attempt to disarm the Karamoja in 2006 was accompanied by the introduction of protected kraals – livestock holding pens protected in the sense that they are located next to military barracks. However the implementation of this initiative has been replete with problems. Livestock production and productivity has reduced through increasing disease transmission among animals due to their close proximity; decreasing access to grazing land (as households can only graze their animals as far as they can walk within a day, since the animals must be returned to the kraals in the evening); decreasing household access to animals and animal products, such as milk and blood; and increasing vulnerability to raids, given the density of animals in protected kraal areas (Browne and Glaeser 2010; Mkutu 2009; SALDO 2009). For a detailed report on traditional migration routes and the impacts of the protected kraals see SALDO 2009. The Jie for example were grouped in Kotido district, which is semi-arid with many areas unable to support large livestock herds on a permanent basis. During the drought of 2007 all herds were concentrated at Loongor (a colonial dam built for dry season grazing). Although there was enough water in Loongor there was not enough pasture and it is reported that at least 40% of the livestock population died of starvation. After this, the Jie and CSOs lobbied for the army to allow for more movement and in 2008 the Jie were allowed to follow their traditional grazing routes (SALDO 2009). In June 2009 the army abolished the protected kraals and there is hope that access to pasture and water will improve when security prevails in the traditional grazing areas (SALDO 2009; AllAfrica Website 2009). However protected kraals were still in evidence by mid-2010 (Longoli 2010). There are few sustained or effective efforts to prevent raids, recover stolen property, or prosecute criminals: punishment is handed out collectively rather than holding the individuals involved responsible. Without effective protection, and law
100
100
and order provision by the GoU pastoralists are left with little option than to (re)purchase weapons and ammunition to defend their animals, property and families (Iyodu 2009). The Ugandan media and politicians repeatedly stereotype the Karimojong and others in the region as backward and primitive. Insecurity in the region is dismissed as a ‘cultural problem’ or characterised purely as criminal behavior. Little attention is given to the implications of this insecurity on the local population. The resulting culture of impunity allows raiders and criminals to engage in violent livelihood strategies without fear of official reprisal or prosecution (Stites et al 2007). Today the security situation has improved greatly in Karamoja, due to the concerted and more integrated efforts of the GoU, communities and other actors. This is however providing fertile ground for increased investment in the area. Without secure land rights, the Karimojong may now be facing increasing risks of losing their lands to such investment unless measures are taken to protect them. Water development As described above, successive governments have wanted to see pastoralists reduce mobility and settle down. In Karamoja the development of new water sources has repeatedly been linked with these objectives. Water is frequently perceived as the simple technocratic solution: water will develop the people because they do not have enough for their livestock. It will stop people having to move to other districts to look for it. Part of the rationale for the construction of dams and valley tanks by the colonial government was that it would limit the need for herders to cross the Karamoja boundaries. This view remains largely intact. In 1995, the President gave a directive that the Karamojong should remain within their district boundaries and the emergency rehabilitation of valley dams was planned to facilitate this (Watson, 1997 in Ministry of Finance 2004). An FAO team after independence advised a halt in construction of dams and tanks until a review was carried out. This was not done, and dam construction continued (Mamdani et al, 1992). The establishment of new water points failed to take account of customary grazing/migration practices and encouraged permanent grazing around the water points throughout the year (in Walker 2002 in Ministry of Finance 2004). Conflicts arose between the government and the Karamojong due to the lack of involvement of local communities in decision making processes and the non-transparent manner in which resources were distributed (Iyodu 2009). Women in particular are marginalised from these decisions, even though they are responsible for collection of domestic water (Kisamba-Mugerwa 2001). The provision of boreholes and other water points is still considered today as the means to develop the region and resolve the ‘pastoral problem’. In a statement by the First Lady and Karamoja Affairs State Minister, Janet Musevini, she said that the government still believes that water development is the answer to the ‘Karamoja problem’ as the ‘nomadic way of life cannot be maintained’ and the provision of water will assist the ‘Karamoja to settle down permanently’ (New Vision 2010b).
101
101
National parks and other protected areas Since the 1960s the GoU has pursued a strong policy of establishing protected areas and state-led protection of resources. Due to the high incidence of wildlife and rich natural resources base in the area, Karamoja has seen more conservation protectionism than elsewhere. In the early 1960s, the Kidepo National Park covering 1,442 sq km was established followed by three controlled hunting areas of Napak covering 196 sq km, North Karamoja protected area covering 10,820 sq km and South Karamoja protected area covering 7,882 sq km. In 1964, a further three game (wildlife) reserves of Matheniko (1,573 sq km) Bokora (2,145 sq km) and Pian-Upe (2,152 sq km) were established. By 1965, a total of 26,204 sq km (94.6% of Karamoja) was under protected areas (Rugadya et al 2010). In 2002 54% of the land area under conservation in Karamoja region was ‘de-gazetted’ including those areas that have been heavily encroached upon. In 2010 40.8% of Karamoja remains as a protected area including Kidepo Valley National Park 1,436 km sq.; Pian Upe, Bokora and Matheniko wildlife reserves totaling 5,629 km sq.; and Iriri, Karenga and Amudat community wildlife areas totaling 4,595 km sq).
Figure 4.2 Status of conservation and protected areas in Karamoja as of 2010 (Source: Rugadya et al 2010)
102
102
Though grazing, settlement and cultivation is still prohibited in Kidepo National Park, in case of disaster the Minister responsible for tourism has statutory powers to permit controlled grazing, as often happens in Lake Muburo National Park. Access can also be granted for collection of some forest products such as firewood, honey and herbs. However a survey conducted in the communities around the Park revealed that they were not aware of such opportunities. The downgrading of the Bokoro Wildlife Reserve to a community wildlife area has meant the return of inhabitants to the area, and the continued use of the area as a seasonal migration corridor from Kangole and Matany to Teso for 60,000-100,000 cattle. However the majority of communities in the area are unclear of their rights to use the resources and the current status of the different conservation areas (Rugadya et al 2010). In addition, tripartite collaborative management agreements with private sector companies and local district administrations for the management of some of the wildlife reserves in Karamoja have been signed. Most communities never get a share of the monies that arise from the management agreements as these are channeled directly to the districts. According to the Community Conservation Coordinator of UWA, communities are yet to form associations that can sign Memorandum of Understandings (MoUs) on behalf of their communities, so that the money from these arrangements is directly received by the communities. For the moment, the only monies received by the communities are those from sport hunting since it does not require the approval of an association (ibid). In addition, a total of 322,210 hectares is classified as forest reserve in Karamoja, but the recognition of community rights of access to resources in the forest reserves is a long accepted tradition, which the Director for Natural Forests at National Forest Authority asserts is secured:
“Right from the first forest ordinances of 1932 up to to-date in the National Forestry and Tree Planting Act, 2003, it is clearly stated that local communities are free to enter and pick any forest produce as long as it is for domestic use. Nobody has ever been denied that right.”
In addition, local authorities have powers to issue licenses to whoever wants to buy forest products. The Forest Authority recognises the need to shift forestry management to collaborative management involving communities but believes that currently the communities are not sufficiently prepared to negotiate their engagement in ways that are beneficial to their access and use rights (Rugadya et al 2010). Smallholder and commercial agriculture In response to the provision of water points, and the pressure to sedentarise with mobility increasingly challenged, many pastoralists have turned to the cultivation of crops to supplement their livestock-based livelihood. Some land-grabbing by pastoral elites from Karamoja has also taken place. There has been an expansion of agriculture in the more fertile areas, such as Karenga in Dodoth, Namalu in Pian, and Iriir in Bokora, which were previously dry season grazing areas. Already by the 1960s, land under cultivation had increased up to five times in some areas since the introduction of the ox-plough (Hudson 1996 in Ministry of Finance 2004). This has
103
103
clearly involved benefits to some households in terms of increased agricultural production. Women in particular grow crops around the homestead whilst the males in the family take the cattle to far off pastures. Increasingly these plots are being fenced (Rugadya 2006). In Moroto in 2006/2007 under a presidential initiative an agreement was signed with a French Firm CNI to produce 850 tonnes of gum arabic annually. Only found in the Karamoja area of Uganda the TUGACS (Uganda Gum Arabic Co-operative Society) scheme was set up where 2,018 farmers were said to have the capacity to produce 4,700 tonnes of Acacia senegal gum annually and 3,000 of A. seyal. But this never happened because of capacity and financial constraints. In 2010 an Irish investor agreed to revive the scheme (the Healy Group) saying that they would fund 50% of the activities of the Society (Mugabe 2010). It is likely that this will lead to the enclosing of land in the area in order to protect the gum from other users. There has been some resettlement of people from urban areas such as Kampala and Jinja into western zones of Karamoja, by the government. These settlement areas used to be dry season grazing areas (Browne and Glaeser 2010). Many of the settlers are in fact Karimojong (and in particular women and children) who had moved to the cities in an attempt to escape the misery and violence at home (Sundal in press). There are said to be thousands of IDPs in IDP camps in the area,8 which has placed enormous pressure on surrounding resources (Ministry of Finance 2004). The vast majority of IDPs interviewed in 2003/4 were found to be less than 6 km from their land (Stites et al 2007). As IDP return commenced in late 2007 tenure security declined increasing the number of land disputes. The perceived land scarcity drives all persons into a state of jealously protecting the little they have and reacting to the slightest provocation to protect their land, while illegal occupation of land by neighbors (early returnees) and relatives also accounts for land disputes. Inheritance disputes especially those related to land rights of widows and orphaned children, arising from the family (paternal uncles or clan heads) are also common (Rugadya 2009). With improved security in the area there has been increased interest in the area for commercial investment in agriculture. When the protected areas were being de-gazetted in 2002 a Libyan investor wanted to acquire 500,000 acres of land from the Pian Upe Reserve. However, this would heavily disrupt dry-season pastures and water resources offered by the reserve for tens of thousands of heads of cattle from Nakapipirit and Moroto Districts. After a pro-longed push the land was not granted and 4,000 sq km in Teso were offered to the investor instead (which was subsequently refused as it was considered to be too small).9 Subsequently, the
8 IDPs move to camps for a number of security-based reasons including direct targeting by the LRA, shifts in interactions with the rebels, government pressure to move into camps, or traumatic events experienced at the household level (Stites et al 2006). All residents must be back inside the camp at the designated curfew. 9 It is a common trend for government to de-gazette protected areas for investor interests; in 1997, the Government of Uganda de-gazetted 1,006 hectares of Namanve Forest Reserve (1,816 hectares of peri-urban plantation forests planted to supply poles and fuel wood) for development of an industrial estate. In 2000, Government attempted to de-gazette 3,500 hectares of the approximately 6,500 hectares of protected forest estate on Bugala Island for the development of an oil palm estate by BIDCO Oil Refineries Ltd; In 2001, the Government of Uganda de-gazetted Butamira Forest
104
104
community has been assisted by LWF (Lutheran World Federation) to form a CLA, and acquire a customary land certificate (CLC) for the land. They are now in a position to negotiate directly with foreign investors. The greatest challenge is to sustain these CLAs, ensuring they work with/through customary institutions (Iriama 2010). Some investors are sidelining district governments and approaching communities direct. Communities ignorant of the impacts of agreements with investors and/or their rights have entered into them with subsequent loss of land (Rugadya et al 2010). Minerals Minerals used to rank among Uganda’s top economic activities and foreign exchange earners in the 1960s, contributing up to 7 percent of the GDP. By 1996 22,010 sq km of land was licensed to 13 companies either engaged in mining or marbles of gemstones or were holding prospective licenses. Though there was a slump in the 1980-90s, from 2004 to 2008, the sector on average grew by 13 percent per annum. The Department of Geological Surveys and Mines, acknowledges that Karamoja is home to unevaluated deposits of gold. What is commonly seen are companies either exploring or prospecting. Additionally marble occurs extensively in the carbonatite ring complexes that stretch to Tororo and phosphates at Sukulu. Within the framework of the 1995 Constitution, all minerals and petroleum in Uganda are vested in the Government (in Rugadya et al 2010). More information on the policy for minerals in Uganda can be found in Rugadya et al 2010. Out of the total Karomoja area (27,700 sq km), 6,876.92 sq km (24.8% of Karamoja) is covered by Exclusive Mineral Exploration Licenses and Location Licenses, with more being issued. A further 20 sq km is covered by a mining lease given to Tororo Cement Ltd for 21 years (the maximum allowed) for limestone mining in Moroto (a forest reserve area) and a further 12 sq miles in Tapac sub-district. In Moroto in 2009, local leaders became so angry at the lack of consultation and knowledge about the lease to Tororo that they seized the keys to the mining site in Kosiroi village stating that: “we shall not rest until we get to know the person who sold the Karamijong wealth” (in Rugadya et al 2010). Indeed the majority of community members interviewed during a survey by Trocaire and Oxfam GB, said they were on the brink of such riotous actions, mainly because of the absence of information from government leaders on the mining occurrences they witness within their communities. Whereas the local government leaders are willing to avail the information, they themselves lack facts on the status of mining in the region to the extent that the local army were considering shooting down a plane that was recently seen carrying out an aerial survey for uranium, near Moroto Town (ibid). Where consultations are carried out communities allege they do not take place in Reserve for the benefit of commercial sugar cane growing by Kakira Sugar Works Ltd (KSW). In 2008, the GoU attempted to de-gazette Mabira Forest for the benefit of commercial sugar cane growing by Lugazi Sugar Works (Rugadya et al 2010).
105
105
good faith, and are either manipulated by local leaders or local elites, who convene communities to rubber stamp processes with the promise of sinking bore holes, building schools and hospitals etc. without fully explaining the implications of the mining concessions. In other instances, there is a level of connivance by local elites either for self aggrandisement or as conduit units for other investors’ interests: either way they play on community’s ignorance of the law, to make them forfeit their rights in favor of companies that are exploring or mining (ibid). Karamoja as a cattle-keeping area, faces problems of restriction in movement of animals when extensive acreage is devoted to exploration. This is especially true when mining concessions carry with them restrictions on animal movement and large areas for grazing are cordoned off upon construction of beacons. Secondly it is a legal requirement to seal off exploration areas, upon conclusion of exploration, which is a disadvantage to artisan miners deriving livelihood from areas, under mineral exploration10. To many communities, it has been termed malicious denial of access to ancestral resources for the Karamojong (ibid). The legal framework governing mining stipulates the ratios for sharing royalties as being 80% of gross value mined or quarried emitted to Government, 17% goes to the licensee and 3% to the landowner. This ratio is premised on a principle that all minerals are owned by the State. However in the case of Karamoja no person or community has ever received this 3%. The explanation given for this by the Mines Department is because the Karamoja do not have written evidence of land ownership (ibid). This situation has led to increased land-grabbing by individuals to secure rights to land and to payments made through mineral extraction (Iriama 2010). Rangeland fragmentation in southern and western regions The rest of the ‘cattle corridor’ stretches diagonally across Uganda from Karamoja (in the north-eastern corner). All the districts in the cattle corridor receive two rainfall seasons, with annual averages ranging between 500 mm to 2,000 mm. Today there are two types of pastoralists. There are a few pastoralists who remain nomadic including many Bahima and Basongora (and Rwandese pastoralists) – they own no land and migrate from place to place tracking seasonally available resources. The second category is cattle keepers who are settled. Although a few have started buying land, they tend to graze on other people’s land with or without their permission. When the dry season sets in they move with their herds to another part of the country. They may return after an extended period, often to find that the land has been settled by other people11 (Muhereza 2006).
10 For example a gold mining concession was provided to a South African Company called Branch Energy in Kabong. In 2000 the company was given access to the area, where previously the community used to dig for gold. The area was cordoned off preventing access to grazing areas. The local community was told very little and though they saw planes taking the gold back to South Africa for five years, they received no benefits. Eventually the Company decided that the mine was not in fact cost-effective and left. On their leaving the mine was sealed off and poisonous snakes released to prevent locals from entering the mine. 11 For a highly detailed description of the current status of pastoral groups in different districts in the cattle corridor see Muhereza 2006.
106
106
Ranches The Ankole rangelands are semi-arid areas that form part of the western section of the cattle corridor. Traditionally, Bahima pastoralists inhabited the area, rearing the long horned Ankole cow with whom they built strong relations. In the early 1920s the Bahima were joined by the Bahororo, and the Rwandan Tutsis in the 1960s. At this time the majority of Bahima were highly mobile with whole families moving to track rangeland resources (Munchunguzi forthcoming). In 1964, Lake Mburo and approximately 650 km sq of the land north to the Masaka-Mbarara road and east to Lake Kachera was gazetted as the Lake Mburo Game Reserve. However, increases in the number of cattle as a result of the control of tsetse, the advent of modern veterinary medicine, and the establishment of artificial watering points began to put pressure on the area from the late 1960s onwards. Pressure on the Game Reserve was exacerbated by the conversion of grazing lands north of the road from traditional communal use to mainly privately held leaseholds through the Ankole Ranching Scheme as well as the ranches at Mawogola, Singo, Buruli, Bunyoro and Kiryandongo Ranches (Zwick and Llyod 1998).
Figure 4.3: Cattle corridor (Source: Rugadya 2006) The Ankole Ranching Scheme was developed in two phases: phase one between 1962 and 1968 with 40 ranches of around 1200 hectares (12 sq km) and phase two in the 1970s with 10 ranches (Lamprey 2003). The Government maintained some control over how they were managed. With support from USAID, perimeter fencing was provided, water-supplies installed, and ranchers benefited from
107
107
subsidized construction materials and veterinary services. The ranchers owned their own livestock and the income that accrued from livestock products (Kisamba-Mugerwa, 1992). Whilst the ranches had some successes, in general they disenfranchised nomadic pastoralists of their land. The procedures for application were too elaborate for an illiterate population to follow, and they were not educated in the skills necessary to manage the ranches as economic units. Many pastoralists were made landless and yet they held huge numbers of livestock. These displaced people squatted with their herds in Lake Mburo Game Reserve (as it was then), the forest reserves and on the Government sponsored ranching schemes on terms dictated by individual ranchers. In a bid to counteract this, in 1983 the Game Reserve was upgraded to National Park status, and 300 families were forcefully evicted. However, conflicts continued, and in 1988/9 the National Park was reduced in size by some 60% to its current 260 km sq. A portion of the de-gazetted land was set aside for communal grazing and settlement (with households being provided with 39.8 hectares each), while the rest became Ankole Ranching Scheme 41-50 and the Nshara Dairy Ranches (occupying 6,475 hectares) (Zwick and Llyod 1998; Ocaido et al undated; Lamprey 2003). The situation was made more complex by periodic influxes of Rwanda refugees and their cattle. Many were settled temporarily in refugee camps around Katonga Wildlife Reserve in the Kyaka I and Kyaka II refugee camps, which they vacated in the early 1990s to return to Rwanda (Zwick and Llyod 1998). Though these schemes were supposed to benefit local development, the ranches were leased to influential politicians and cooperative societies, managed by the political elite who exploited them for their own profit. In order to use the grazing of water on the land payments had to be made to the ranch owners with some having to pay around US$1,000 to water animals from one of the valley tanks. Of the first forty ranches allocated, fifteen were owned by absentee landlords who were members of an ethnically distinct cattle-owning upper class, with four of the six Ankole members of the Uganda parliament receiving ranches (Doornbos and Lofchie 1971; Muchunguzi personal communication 2011). In 1990 the Government appointed a Commission of Inquiry to examine the set-up of the ranches and their management. They recommended that some ranches should be continued but others should be split and a Ranch Restructuring Board was set up to scale down the ranches (Lamprey 2003). Ranches of five sq miles were restructured into smaller ones (1-3 sq mile). New ranches were established in Kiboga district covering 30 sq miles, as well as private/commercial ones in Luwero, Kiboga and Nakasongora and Masindi districts. Some of the land was taken back by the government and provided to the pastoralists who had been ‘squatting’ in the area and/or they were resettled on schemes such as the Kanyaryeru Resettlement Scheme on land annexed from Lake Mburo NP. The process of land redistribution to the pastoralists was hijacked in many cases by wealthy and powerful landowners who used the opportunity to enlargen their own plots (Muchunguzi forthcoming). See map of the fragmentation in Figure 4.4. In Masindi, an estimated 300 households with 20,000 cattle were evicted from the 62 sq mile Kiryana Ranch by Mukwano Enterprises who aim to use the ranch for
108
108
intensive livestock production to export to the Middle East, Angola and DRC. A total of 302 herdsmen petitioned Parliament in September to restrain Mukwano from evicting them. The pastoralists (who had been relocated into the area in 2003 from Kiboga and Nakasongola districts) want to share the ranch with Mukwano (New Vision 2010c). With increased population and contacts with other communities plus government initiatives some Bahima could now be considered more agriculturalists than pastoralists (see below). Others continue to move on a seasonal basis renting lands for their herds, in particular those lands close to Lake Mburo NP. Also in the area are the Bairu. These agriculturalists have enclosed large areas of land to expand their farms and increasingly to carry out livestock ranching. As access to grazing has become ever more restricted many Bahima have moved to other areas including Buganda, Buyoro, Teso and Lango regions where they have met with stiff resistance from receiving communities. As a result they live in a permanent state of displacement, sometime moving into Tanzania only to be chased back across the border. Others who are more politically connected are moving north into Uganda’s cattle corridor, coming into conflict with other pastoralist groups, for example around Masindi and Hoima (Munchunguzi forthcoming). Figure 4.4: Ranch subdivision and land fragmentation in the Ankole Ranching Scheme
around Lake Mburo NP (Lamprey 2003). Meanwhile, the leasing of large areas of rangeland by the ULC in the 1970s and 80s created problems in other parts of the cattle corridor. Whilst some of these ranches are well managed, others are fragmented and now contribute little to national development. Lamprey (2003) described the corridor as broken up into the following types of land ownership/occupancy:
• Large private ranches 20-70 sq.km (e.g. Ziwa) leased from public land; • Some large ranches established in the 1960s still Government-managed (e.g.
Kiryana, Nshara); • Small ranches of 5-10 sq.km in former ranching schemes (e.g. Ankole, Buruli),
with unclear title; • Squatter ranches of former ranching schemes, people with no title until land
survey performed;
109
109
• Squatter ranches now being surveyed and divided into units of 30-100 ha, with people who will need to apply for titles.
North-western rangelands In north-western Uganda there are large areas land in Gulu, Adjumani and Moyo Districts that were evacuated during the 1920s due to sleeping sickness, and became a settlement exclusion zone. The area remains tsetse-infested to this day. In 1972, the Aswa-Lolim Game Reserve and Kilak CHA north of Murchison Falls NP were de-gazetted to make way for private ranches. These ranches only occupied small parts of this vast rangeland. The ranching was not successful, as tsetse remained a problem and increasing insecurity in the late 1980s made ranching operations hazardous. There are no records of cattle being kept in large numbers, and a Government quarantine compound at Pakwach, now derelict, appears to have been little used. By the early 1990s the area had been entirely evacuated, and all ranches reverted to bush. Throughout the region, scattered communities are now drawn into ‘protected villages’ around army encampments. The vast majority of the region’s population is internally displaced (Lamprey 2003). Apart from the scattered ranch blocks, for which some form of title exists in the Gulu land office, the larger part of this rangeland area appears to have no formal title. However, the eastern side of the Albert Nile in Gulu District is hotly contested by the Acholi of Gulu, and the Jonam people of Nebbi District. According to both groups, the area is only vacant because of the insecurity, and they will return to occupy it when the security situation improves. A Game Department proposal in the mid-1980s to establish a wildlife corridor along the Nile stretching from Murchison Falls NP northwards to Zoka Forest was surveyed, but not implemented, due to insecurity and lack of resources. Meanwhile, wildlife ranching proposals made to Gulu District by the World Bank in the mid-1990s were well received, and thus there may be possibilities in the future if security is improved (ibid 2003). Smallholder agricultural production and individual enclosures The Ankole scheme also helped precipitate a spontaneous enclosure movement among smallholders outside the scheme where land pressure was increasing due to population growth, increasing cattle numbers, and the alienation of land to the ranches and wildlife conservation. In a situation where typical agricultural holdings barely exceeded two hectares, by 1973 enclosures (excluding the ranching scheme area) ranged in average size from 30 to about 190 hectares in different parts of Ankole, and were held for a mixture of pastoral, arable, and legal reasons: While it is true that there are individuals in Ankole whose motive to fence is associated with the need to institute a system of modern animal husbandry, to many the fencing movement is nothing more than a device
to protect land. The need for protecting land has been heightened by the marked growth of the human and livestock populations of the area
(Muwonge 1978:184) (in Behnke 2008). In other parts too a high level of spontaneous individualisation of communal land by pastoralists and crop farmers is going on including in Mbarara and Ntungamo (in Ankole), Kasese and Karamoja with tacit support of the government. This has
110
110
resulted in displacement and conflicts among local communities particularly in Kasese where the pastoralist Basongora lost land to the crop farming Bakonzo. Zero grazing units are common. The establishment of water points and dams (such as in Mbarara, Rakai and Sembabul) has encouraged this practice (Kisamba-Mugerwa 2001; Muhereza 2006). Some Bahima started growing crops as early as the 1940s and living a more sedentarised life, due to a scarcity of land for grazing as well as to access education, and water. Both government12 and missionaries influenced this move, indicating that a settled way of life would be better for them. A study interviewed 23 elder members of the community in Mbarara district. Today they have access to veterinary services but though some said the livestock are healthier, others suggested they were weaker than in the past and less resistant to disease and other stress. The cattle are also less productive, yielding less milk – this was directly attributed to their confinement on one piece of land. There is an increasing trend to cross the Ankole with the higher milk-producing Holstein Freisian. Land is fenced off into individual plots and cattle are only moved to other areas during long and severe droughts. The District veterinary officer must approve such movements and the person requesting the migration must be able to prove that he/she owns land in the second location. As this is not always possible, movements of animals are often done without official documents. This leads to problems with communities in the other districts. Despite these challenges those interviewed are said to prefer this more settled lifestyle to the past nomadic one (Wurzinger et al 2009). However, though those who were able to access land may be happy with their lives now, not all were able to access land at the time of distribution and/or agreed with the change to sedentarised living. As a result many pastoralists chose or were forced to remain reliant on extensive livestock pastoral practices. As Mbarara District was divided up and fenced, it became increasingly difficult to access grazing and as a result many started an ongoing process of moving, eviction and re-moving. Many moved to Kiruhura District, where again increased division of the land for agriculture as well as the enforcement of boundaries around Lake Chimba NP forced them to move on. They then moved to Central parts of the cattle corridor, close to Teso. Between 2004-6 the Bahima were once again moved on – from the wetlands of Teso having been blamed for environmental degradation of the area. By this time there were Bahima representatives in government, and as a result the army helped large number of the pastoralists (approximately 5,000 households with average 150 cattle/household) to move to Lake Albert in Bulisa District (already under great land pressure – see below), despite local opposition (Muchunguzi personal communication 2011). This has generated tension with the local people, and the Government has deployed soldiers to protect the migrants from possible attacks (Rugadya 2009). The area is now a mix of the Bahima, Tutsi (forced up from the Rwanda border) and the Banyamulenge. Oil exploration in the area has further created problems (Muchunguzi personal communication 2011) (see below).
12 For example between 1964-9 a programme of land titling was introduced into the area by the government (Muchunguzi, personal communication 2011).
111
111
Irrigated agriculture Some parts of the cattle corridor have been targeted for irrigation. The irrigation scheme of Mubuku currently occupies a land area of 2,000 hectares. This is divided into 990 hectares for gravity irrigation and 1,010 hectares for diary development. Currently only 516 hectares (irrigated area) is under use. The other 474 hectares is dry, although it is reported to have been surveyed, graded, levelled and some irrigation structures put in place. However the civil works were never completed (Kasese District 2010). Besides Mubuku irrigation scheme, feasibility studies have also indicated that areas like Katojo in Nyakiyumbu, Nyakatonzi and Kinyamaseke in Munkunyu, Kiburara in Kisinga are all viable for irrigation farming. It is said that Nyamugasani, Kanyapara and possibly Lhubilha Rivers all have great potential to be used for irrigating these proposed areas. The River Nyamugasani is said to be capable for providing adequate water to irrigate 2000 hectares while River Kanyampara can be developed to irrigate 50 hectares of land. Water quality analysis for irrigation suitability has also been done on these two rivers and the reports indicate that the water quality is good for irrigation. A detailed report on feasibility study of the irrigation potential is available in the district for future development (ibid). National parks As suggested above, Uganda has an extensive network of National Parks and Reserves, many of which are found in or bordering the cattle corridor. Besides these, the corridor is sprinkled with several small lots of protected forests. The existence of these closed areas within the cattle corridor has created management problems for the pastoralists, the forestry and wildlife authorities. Pressures outside the areas have meant encroachment of pastoralists onto the gazetted land. The most serious is around Lake Mburo, Kibaale, and Katonga areas. A very strong environment-oriented pressure group exists that has caused displacement of the encroachers – Kibaale has been one of the most affected areas. Secondly the development of tourism, an important source of foreign exchange, has further marginalised the interests and rights of pastoralists (Kisamba-Mugerwa 2001). Lake Mburo National Park In 1983, the then government created the Lake Mburo National Park establishing the boundaries along those of the original game reserve. The park was opened up to the public in 1984 after evicting approximately 45,000 families (mainly Bahima pastoralists) without compensation. Property and livestock were lost. Even some people lost their lives when they were dumped at Sanga Veterinary Station. During the civil war in 1985 many of those evicted returned to the Park, only to be removed again in 1986, where they were sent to a section of Park de-gazetted for the purposes of setting up the Kanyaryeru resettlement scheme (Munchunguzi forthcoming). Queen Elizabeth National Park Until the late 1930s Basongora pastoralists controlled most of the territory from the
112
112
plains north of Lake Albert in Congo up to Lake George, that is to say that virtually the entire northern sector of Queen Elizabeth NP used to be Basongora grazing land. In the 1930s the area between Lake Edward and Lake George was hit by epidemics of sleeping sickness and rinderpest and the herders fled, either to the now DRC or to other districts of Uganda. When they finally managed to rebuild their herds and return to their traditional grazing land at the end of the 1950s, the Basongora found that all but the small area of Nyakatonzi had been made into a park. In the following years more grazing land in Nyakatonzi was lost to groups of cultivators, either settled there by the government or, from 1988, flowing down from the Rwenzori Mountains fleeing the activity of the National Army for the Liberation of Uganda. A government attempt to turn Nyakatonzi into farmland, in 1972, was boycotted by the herders and subsequently was abandoned (Krätli and Swift 2000). In 1989, the territory between the park boundary and the Katwe- Katojo road, from Katwe to Rwehingo (which had always been referred to as a hunting reserve by Uganda National Park, now UWA) was opened to cotton growers. This cut off the last cultivation-free corridor to Lake Edward, one of the two perennial sources of water available to the herders. Successful Basongora cultivation of food crops on the banks of Nyamugasani River in 1990-91, was destroyed by the elephants and has never been resumed. Though in the 1990s agreements were made between the Park and pastoralists to allow grazing and gathering of some natural resources from the Park, the relations between the two has been generally negative (ibid). In 2006 several groups of Basongora met in Nyakatonzi, and gradually encroached on the QENP. In September 2007, 8,000 Basongora pastoralists and 50,000 heads of cattle were evicted from the Park. Violent clashes broke out with the UWA, who tried to push them back into the survival corridor. Some pastoralists were killed and property destroyed (Rugadya 2009). Eventually the pastoralists were given around 32,000 acres of land for relocation.13 Additionally the Basongora ancestral land in Bukangara and Rwehingo totaling 25,000 acres was formally shared between the cultivators and the pastoralists. This gave 17,00 acres to the pastoralists and 8,000 acres to the Bamba and Bakonzo cultivators in western Uganda. The government was also to develop a long-term plan and budget for the ‘modernisation’ of the Basongora community in Kasese District (ibid). In addition the UWA provided the communities with some funds from tourism revenues, which they used to fence the acquired land. This helped to improve relations between the two parties. Today in Kasese, 65% of the land is held by the State under protected areas, with the remaining 35% left to share amongst the three indigenous tribes of Bakhonzo, Basongora and Banyabindi who are squeezed into the ‘corridor of survival’ (ibid). As described above the district is also being targeted for irrigation schemes. 13 Including 15,800 acres within Ibuga Refugee Settlement (3,500 acres), Ibuga Prison Farm (1,400 acres), Hima Army Production Unit (3,500 acres), Mubuku Prison Farm (5,300 acres), Karusandara (1,100 acres), and Muhokya (1,000 acres) (Tusiime 2009).
113
113
Murchison Falls NP The British colonial government took 80% of the land in Bullisa and Bugungu to gazette Murchison Falls National Park and Budongo Forest reserve, the remaining 20% was zoned into grazing land near the Lake and land for cultivation near the Park, which has been communally owned and used by the Bagungu for over 60 years. However, in 2004 Bullisa saw an influx of Balalo pastoralists14, which led to violent clashes between cultivators and herdsmen. In addition, the herdsmen claimed they individually held land titles for about 40 sq miles in Bullisa. But the indigenous residents refuted these claims, arguing that all the land was communally owned (Rugadya 2009). Initially the Government announced a temporary resettlement of the Balalo pastoralists in Kyankwanzi in Kiboga District to avoid the clashes with the Bagungu. The indigenous Buganda rejected out-right the resettlement of the Balalo pastoralists in the area. A further complication was that the government’s directive to move the Balalo pastoralists in essence amounted to surrendering their constitutional rights if they had legitimately acquired land in Bullisa district. This would amount to forceful deprivation of the private property without adequate compensation15 (ibid). In December President Museveni offered the pastoralists alternative land in Nshara Ranch in Kiruhura District (Muzoora 2011). In January it would seem that 400 of the pastoralists had moved into Kolir and Malera wetlands in Bukedea District, from which they were again evicted (Otim 2011). Oil The prospecting of oil in the region is exacerbating existing land conflicts and creating new ones (Rugadya 2009). For example the increase of oil exploration in Bullisa has lead to a rush to secure/register individual leaseholds for land: in general compensation is paid to landholders if land is taken for oil production hence this speculation (ibid). It is suggested that those Balalo pastoralists who had purchased land in Bullisa (described in the section above) had done so as part of this oil-speculation movement. 14 The herdsmen were evicted from Masindi Port in 1998. They settled in Kyempisi Royal Ranch, from which they were evicted in 2003, before they migrated to Buliisa and Kiboga districts. 15 Though the cattle-keepers claim to have bought land from landlords, the Bagungu allege that the pastoralists simply grabbed their land yet their land is communally owned. This land dispute has over time degenerated into violence and turned political at the same time. In 2006, a group of Bagungu attacked the pastoralists and in the process, more than 10 Bagungu got injured. Both the Bagungu and the pastoralist had sought for the intervention of Parliament, the President and High Court. The pastoralists in 2007 tried to sue the then Lands State Minister, Dr Kasiriivu Atwooki, the then Coordinator of the intelligence services, Maj. Gen. Kale Kayihura, the Buliisa County MP Stephen Biraahwa, the then Buliisa RDC, Hussein Kato Matanda and the Buliisa Sub-county chairman, Kubalirwa Nkuba, arguing that the accused wanted to unlawfully evict them from their land. But the High Courts on March 25, 2008 dismissed the case with costs and the pastoralists faced eviction. Even after the pastoralists lost court cases, they maintained that they were in Buliisa legally (Wanambwa and Mugerwa 2010).
114
114
Impacts of land fragmentation on pastoral livelihoods and vulnerabilities in Uganda Increased food insecurity, poverty, vulnerability, wealth divides Throughout pastoral areas of Uganda the trends described above have resulted in increased food insecurity, poverty, vulnerability to such as drought, and divides between those who have and are able to keep assets and those that do not. This is exemplified in Karamoja – the poorest region in Uganda despite its high potential for extensive cattle production. In 2008, the Red Cross (2008 in Powell 2010) estimated that 700,000 people in Karamoja were chronically food insecure due to three consecutive poor harvests; depleted food stocks; poor livestock terms of trade in relation to high cereal prices (decreased purchasing power); and a generally declining resource base for agro-pastoralism. UN-OCHA called it ‘a humanitarian emergency’. This, combined with the decimation of much livestock by rinderpest and Contagious Bovine Pleuropneumonia (CBPP) and an outbreak of crop fungus, locked people into a ‘vicious downward spiral’ resulting in elevated food insecurity, higher malnutrition rates and an increase in morbidity (in Powell 2010). Those with more livestock tend to have greater food security. In addition they are better able to diversify their livelihoods, reduce seasonal income variability and smooth consumption. This provides opportunities for more rapid recovery from shock and better weathering of stresses. Households that invest solely in livestock are more susceptible to a complete loss of assets in a raid, and may be impoverished overnight (Stites et al 2007). In southwestern Uganda the trend of allocating individual private property rights in pastoral areas has fostered a new dynamic and the transformation of pastoral and nomadic systems into agro-pastoralism. The major effect of this privatisation process has been the increased number (percentage) of households with smaller herd sizes. The Bahima for example, who in the past were famous for their large herds of over 300 cattle now have between 50-200 (for the rich) and 20-70 (the poor) (Muchunguzi personal communication 2011). Given incomplete / imperfect markets for transhumance contracts, smaller households – who are less likely to engage in mobility – try to diversify their income-generating activities, often unsuccessfully. Moreover, growing resource scarcity at the community level increases demand for more individualised property rights, and intensification of production (Rugadya 2006). And the cycle of more and more land fragmentation continues. The move to agriculture in many of the dryland areas has increased risks for local communities, in particular if predicted climate changes occur and already seemingly are having an impact. Around Lake Albert in the Lower Semliki Valley people have tried to establish agriculture to supplement their livestock production, however changes in rainfall patterns have meant that crops have failed (McGrath 2009). Traditional risk-mitigating strategies of pastoralists have been challenged by reductions on mobility and an increasing emphasis on individual rather than communal property rights (Mwaura 2005 in Powell 2010). This situation has also had an impact on the environment. Mamdani et al (1992) conclude that the twentieth century saw a dramatic change in the vegetation ecology
115
115
of Karamoja with a deterioration in the status of grazing land (Walker 2002 in Ministry of Finance 2004). Further the reduction of herds in the area due to limitations on migration and access to grazing and water has meant that more people have turned to the selling of natural resources in the area (such as trees for charcoal) as poverty has increased. Men in particular are involved in this trade, which in the past had been carried out by women (Sites et al 2010). In Karamoja insecurity (the threat of death and/or rape under enemy hands) was given as the primary reason why natural resources including water and pasture cannot be accessed. Clustering of settlements is occurring to provide greater security so destroying traditional land use patterns (Stites et al 2010). As raiding continues and becomes more commercial in nature, the aggregate wealth of many clans has diminished, creating an imbalance not only in household asset holdings, but also in the social safety nets of entire communities. Also, as a method of protecting their livestock, some poor households will opt to keep their livestock with better-off households, since they typically have the resources (including firepower) to protect the larger herds (Browne and Glaeser 2010). The Government of Uganda’s policy of preventing livestock movement beyond the western border of Karamoja has further aggravated food and civil security in the region by increasing competition for scarce resources. As the livelihood options of the agro-pastoralists and pastoralists from eastern areas of the region continue to deteriorate, theft of food, small ruminants and other household assets has also increased. Deaths associated with attack can have a significant impact on households’ income earning potential and therefore their ability to produce and buy food. Poorer households, may have limited household members able to perform highly physical labor and the death of one member will therefore have considerable affect on household income. Better-off households, on the other hand, may sell assets to pay for hired labor if an able-bodied family member were to die as a result of violence. Thus, the increasing incidences of violence can push poorer households closer to food insecurity while chipping away at the assets of the better-off. The GoU’s uneven enforcement of their disarmament policy in the region has had a similar effect of increasing households’ vulnerability to theft and raiding in this area (Browne and Glaeser 2010; Mkutu 2006). The restrictions on movement are also increasing conflicts between different land users in the cattle corridor, between pastoralists and cultivators and between pastoralists and government (including over the conversion of grazing areas to other land uses) (Muhezera 2006). There are still bastions of communal grazing areas in Lango, Bunyoro, Teso and Ankole (ibid). It is vital that these are protected before further loss and fragmentation occurs. Conclusions The clear and uncompromising policies of successive governments of Uganda to settle pastoralists has had a devastating effect on the livelihoods of pastoralists, and in particular those who still depend upon an extensive land use/livestock system. Though some have benefited from a more settled lifestyle and the growing of crops, the majority live a highly uncertain lifestyle with little security to their land and resources or their livelihoods, and are faced by violent conflict on an almost daily
116
116
basis. Many pastoralists have been shifted from area to area pushed by government, settlers and commercial investors requiring land for non-pastoral uses. Livestock quality and productivity has reduced as animals are not able to access adequate and/or quality pasture. Long migrations in search of grazing and water in new areas encourages one pastoral group to compete with another as well as other land users – for example the Karamijong and the Teso (Bainomugisha et al 2007). The positive aspects of pastoralism and the extensive livestock production it supports should form the basis of its future development. For example a study of the difference between annual returns of the ranching schemes around Lake Mburo NP, and pastoral systems showed that higher annual returns are obtained from pastoral systems (UG Shs 108,800 +/- 38,000) than the ranching systems (Ug Shs 16,300 +/- 4,400) (Ocaido et al undated). Pastoralism can be combined with other land uses such as conservation and tourism, if appropriate and mutually beneficial structures and institutions are set up to manage them. A more effective balance needs to be found between seemingly conflicting land uses such as agriculture and pastoralism. Communities can play a much more significant role in the protection of Uganda’s natural resources if they are to gain some benefits from doing so and their capacity is built up to for example, negotiate their engagement. In addition the expansion of trade in live animals, meat and livestock products has huge potential if supported in ways that prioritise the needs of the producers (the pastoralists). There is an urgent need for a comprehensive and community (pastoral) led land use planning process in pastoral areas that clearly defines current land uses, land/resource tenure systems and the gaps within these. This should be used as a starting point for raising awareness on land issues, the rights that already exist and how to access them (through such as CLAs and CCOs) and gain protection for them; and to influence decision making processes concerned with such as commercial investment. CSOs and NGOs need to better work together to assist communities with this, and develop a more united front from which to promote pastoral rights. The development of an internal migration policy and legal framework is important to curtailing land use and access conflicts arising from pastoral movement (given incidences of large internal migrations are ) with protected migration routes clearly marked, serviced and protected. These should be developed with an element of flexibility allowing some change in response to events such as drought. The starting point for development and interventions including security, service provision and market production, needs to be the priorities and needs of pastoralists, and their traditional grazing practices. Grazing areas or zones require mapping and protection. Degraded areas may need rehabilitation. The land tenure system needs to be revised to match the actual ways that land is being used for production. The new draft Land Policy (2011) is a very positive step towards this and an important starting point for engaging with government on securing rangelands for pastoralists. Indeed the Policy recognises and attempts to address many of the challenges that pastoralists face and seeks to redress historical injustices for those who have been marginalised in the past. It asserts that the State
117
117
shall recognise customary tenure to be on a par with other tenure systems and will establish a customary land registry for registration of customary tenure in its own form (Art. 39). The Government will support the management of common property resources (Art. 55) including identification and gazettement of access routes or corridors to common property resources. It will identify, document and gazette all common property resources wherever located and irrespective of their tenure status; and ensure that common property resources are exclusively used by or available to particular communities are directly held and managed by them (Republic of Uganda 2011). In addition, a section on land rights of pastoral communities states that “mobility is a key ingredient in managing the low net productivity, risk and unpredictability in the rangelands.” However though the Policy states that it is necessary to protect pastoral land rights, it also says that this should not be at the expense of non-pastoral communities (Article 60). Pastoral land will be protected and held, owned and controlled by designated pastoral communities as common property (Article 62) (Republic of Uganda 2011). It is hoped that the forthcoming Rangeland Management policy (currently in draft)16 will also incorporate ways that pastoralism can be positively developed rather than undermined. In fact a number of facilitating policies and legislation do already exist that could provide communities with greater protection to their communal lands. Communities need to be made more aware of these opportunities17 and given assistance in working through the necessary processes. Customary institutions should play a central role in this, and there needs to be better working linkages between customary and government administrations to for example implement the Land Act and the new Land Policy when it comes into effect. The root causes of conflict require urgent addressing, through community structures. Land issues have become highly politicised and thus resolving land conflicts is complex, sensitive and involves numerous actors at different levels. Relations, that have often been beneficial in the past, need to be rebuilt and long-term solutions identified to overcome the current impasse. Security must be improved so that people can safely go about their lives without fear. The particular needs of women should be addressed within this. For a map of conflict hotspots see Figure 4.5 Land conflicts and disputes are on the increase and yet there is a lack or no capacity at all in the institutions charged with the adjudication and settlement of land disputes both statutory and traditional. The increasing and continuing proliferation of administrative and statutory land governance institutions existing in parallel with traditional institutions is creating a complex land governance infrastructure; this is made worse by the fact that some of these institutions are not fully operational in
16 A draft Rangeland Management Policy was produced in 2007 and is currently being reviewed. 17 A survey for Ministry of Justice showed that an aggregate of 90% of respondents had no knowledge of what is contained in the Land Act. Not even a single district amongst those surveyed had more than 15% of their population with any knowledge of the contents of the Land Act. In another survey, six years after the passage of the Land Act, it was found that such knowledge remained low; only one quarter of the population indicated that they were informed about the law (Rugadya 2009).
118
118
certain areas; such as northern Uganda and yet they are de facto legal institutions. Where institutions do exist they often lack knowledge of land administration and registration processes are out of date. It is estimated that 60% of the land register that was established 100 years ago, for example is out of date (Rugadya et al 2010). Figure 4.5 Conflict hotspots in Uganda (Source: www.majimbokenya.com)
Not only do conflicts have costs for communities, but for the government too. It is estimated that the government spends about 50% of its national budget on military interventions amounting to $100m a year with a significant proportion spent in the the ASALs (Adan and Pkalya, 2005). If some of this funding was invested in securing strong rights to resources for local communities including pastoralists, then more effective and long-lasting solutions are likely to result. In the absence of formal government structures, access to the justice system is difficult and at the lower ends is poorly equipped to deliver and enforce justice. Experience has shown that many types of land disputes are best managed outside the courts. Limited court capacity to process land claims efficiently and transparently is a serious constraint in many places. Thus, alternative dispute resolution processes, especially mediation and arbitration, can be useful, while customary and community-based mechanisms for conflict resolution may be relevant in some cases, given the fact that dispute resolution in customary tenure is based more on mediation than upon passing judgment in favor of one party or another (Rugadya 2009). Though people speak of droughts becoming more frequent and intense, it is political and economic constraints that make it both harder for them to cope and harder for them to recover from each drought (McGrath 2009). Unless these constraints are fully addressed, then the vulnerability of pastoralists in Uganda can only increase.
