Mapping of pastoral corridors: practices and politics in eastern Senegal

Abstract

The delineation and protection of transhumance corridors are increasingly seen as critical to maintaining livestock mobility in agropastoral areas of West Africa by allowing passage through areas of increasing cropping pressure. Understanding the local politics surrounding the mapping and protection of transhumance corridors is important for policy formulation. This study reports the findings of group meetings in nine local districts (communautés rurales) in eastern Senegal about recently mapped corridors. The focus of our observations include local perceptions of 1) the benefits and costs of corridors, 2) the effect of the recognition of corridors on competing land uses (particularly farming), 3) the need for and means to recognize and protect corridors, and 4) the appropriate level of authority to recognize and protect corridors. Our findings show significant geographical variation within the study area as to the perceived benefits and costs of corridors, with a major distinction between groups who view the function of corridors as protecting local farms from livestock passing through and those that understand corridors as critical for facilitating access to pastures. Given the significant overlap among multiple formal and informal poles of authority, the politics surrounding corridor delineation and protection are shaped less by the perceived costs to competing land uses than by contestation over the authority that designation and protection would require. Policy implications of findings for land use planning around corridors are discussed.

Reconciling Flexibility and Tenure Security for Pastoral Resources: the Geography of Transhumance Networks in Eastern Senegal

“…Institutional realities within the region suggest that these systems will require cooperation and coordination among civil society organizations (customary pastoral authorities and pastoral associations) to govern pastoral resources in a flexible manner with more formal governance institutions at the local district level (e.g., commune) to protect these resources from competing land uses. As previous research has shown, these efforts are not easy and will require sustained efforts of negotiation and compromise at multiple levels of governance (Brottem 2014;Kitchell et al 2014).…”

“…Reciprocity often shapes access to these resources over time, but the imposition of rigid common property boundaries around resources and user groups is seen as unduly inhibiting livestock movements (Moritz et al 2013b). Thus the delineation and codification of corridors and encampment sites, seen by some as critical protections of key pastoral resources from competing land uses (Kitchell et al 2014), are seen by others as introducing rigidity into pastoral systems (Moritz et al 2013a). As described above, this tension reflects what Fernandez-Gimenez (2002) calls the Bparadox of pastoral land tenure^.…”

“…Encampment sites in the River-North Zone, while experiencing high cultivation pressure, are less frequently Bmanagedt han encampments in the North and Middle Zones. According to informants, this reflects the long history of livestock husbandry in the zone and the widespread recognition among its residents of a common code of access (Kitchell et al 2014). In contrast, the Middle Zone has a much shorter history with the village chiefs more commonly cited as encampment managers (to better control outside herders).…”

Historical perspectives on pastoralism and land tenure transformation in Ngamiland, Botswana: What are the policy and institutional lessons?

“…Research on pastoralism has given increasing recognition and support to traditional pastoralism, livestock spatial mobility (Kitchell et al 2014;Scoones 1995) and to rights of pastoral people to control and manage their grazing territories (Adriansen and Nielsen 2002;Swift 1991). It is argued that flexible livestock mobility reduces pastoralists' vulnerability to climate change and the likelihood of livestock-induced rangeland degradation (Brottem et al 2014).…”

“…It is argued that flexible livestock mobility reduces pastoralists' vulnerability to climate change and the likelihood of livestock-induced rangeland degradation (Brottem et al 2014). However, in most sub-Saharan African countries, such recognition has not yet translated into the protection and maintenance of traditional pastoralism of flexible mobility-based systems (Basupi et al 2017;Kitchell et al 2014).…”