Karamoja Development Forum report

MAPPING OF GRAZING AREAS IN KARAMOJA INTEREST GROUP ON GRAZING AREAS

Interest Group on Grazing Areas (2017): Mapping of Grazing Areas in Karamoja

2017 REPORT

I

MAPPING OF GRAZING AREAS IN KARAMOJA INTEREST GROUP ON GRAZING AREAS

II

2017 REPORT

Interest Group on Grazing Areas (2017): Mapping of Grazing Areas in Karamoja The Interest Group (IG) on Grazing Areas in Karamoja works towards the peaceful co-existence of pastoralists and other land users in Karamoja and its surroundings. It consists of twelve national and international nongovernmental and community based organisations, and one academic institution.

Karamoja Development Forum (KDF) - Lead Organisation Dodoth Agro Pastoralist Development Organization (DADO) Matheniko Development Forum (MADEFO) Warrior Squad Foundation (WSF) Karamoja Agro-Pastoral Development Programme (KADP) Karamoja Peace and Development Agency (KAPDA) Karamoja Action Research Team (KART) Veterinaires Sans Frontiers Belgium (VSF-B) Community Livestock Integrated Development Consultancy (CLIDE) Mercy Corps Makerere University Department of Geography Geoinformatics and Climatic Sciences (DGGCS) Land and Equity Movement Uganda (LEMU)

Supported by

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License.

Editing: Layout & Design:

Shuaib Lwasa, Ambrose Buyinza, Benon Nabaasa Kahroy Creative Arts Ltd

2017 REPORT

1

MAPPING OF GRAZING AREAS IN KARAMOJA INTEREST GROUP ON GRAZING AREAS

2

2017 REPORT

MAPPING OF GRAZING AREAS IN KARAMOJA INTEREST GROUP ON GRAZING AREAS

Acknowledgements The Interest Group (IG) on Grazing Areas extends its gratitude to every organisation and individual that contributed time and/or resources towards the successful completion of the mapping exercise.

The IG is particularly grateful to all individuals who participated in the different activities, generously sharing their knowledge and experiences and providing vital feedback at different stages of the exercise.

The project conceptualisation and design, implementation and finalisation of the maps and reports would not have been possible without the strong commitment and efforts of the IG member organisations Karamoja Development Forum (KDF) as lead organisation, Dodoth Agro Pastoralist Development Organisation (DADO), Karamoja Action Research Team (KART), Mercy Corps, Veterinaires Sans Frontiers Belgium (VSF-B), Community Livestock Development Consultancy (CLIDE), Warrior Squad Foundation (WSF) and Makerere University – Department of Geography, Geo-Informatics & Climatic Sciences (DGGCS).

The support of Christian Action for Rural Development (CAFORDE) and many individuals who provided invaluable support in areas of mobilisation, facilitation and documentation is gratefully acknowledged.

Lastly, the IG wants to express its gratitude to Mercy Corps, Veterinaires Sans Frontiers Belgium (VSF-B) and GIZ Civil Peace Service for their financial contributions.

2017 REPORT

3

MAPPING OF GRAZING AREAS IN KARAMOJA INTEREST GROUP ON GRAZING AREAS

Table of Contents List of Acronyms...................................................................................................................................5 1. Introduction......................................................................................................................................6 2. Background to the Interest Group on Grazing Areas and the Mapping Exercise.............................8 3. Methodological Approach to the Mapping Exercise......................................................................10 4. Grazing Areas and Patterns, Past and Present................................................................................16 4.1 Past Grazing Areas (1918-2005) ...................................................................................................16 4.2 Present Grazing Areas (1980-2016)..............................................................................................18 4.3 Case study: Lokilotor Grazing Area, Nakapiripirit.........................................................................20 5. Seasonal Grazing Areas and Patterns.............................................................................................24 5.1 Dry Season Grazing Areas (October-February).............................................................................24 5.2 Wet Season Grazing Areas (March-September)...........................................................................26 5.3 Case Study: Nakonyen Grazing Area, Moroto...............................................................................28 6. Livestock Migratory Routes, Past and Present................................................................................30 6.1 Past Livestock Migratory Routes (1950-2004)..............................................................................30 6.2 Present Livestock Migratory Routes (2000-2016).........................................................................32 6.3 Case Study: Kalapata-Kawalakol-Napotipot Migratory Route, Kaabong.......................................34 7. Grazing Related Conflicts, Past and Present...................................................................................37 7.1 Past Conflict Hotspots (1920-2008)..............................................................................................38 7.2 Present Conflict Hotspots (1990-2016)........................................................................................40 7.3 Case Study: Pastoralist-Wildlife Conflict at Lotisan, Moroto........................................................43 8.Water Resources and Livestock Services, Past and Present.............................................................46 8.1 Past Water Resources and Livestock Services (1950-2011)..........................................................46 8.2 Present Water Sources and Livestock Services (1990-2016)........................................................49 8.3 Case Study: Komuriapus Dam, Nakapiripirit.................................................................................49 9. Conclusion......................................................................................................................................51 10. References....................................................................................................................................52

4

2017 REPORT

MAPPING OF GRAZING AREAS IN KARAMOJA INTEREST GROUP ON GRAZING AREAS

List of Acronyms CAHW

Community Animal Health Worker

CSO

Civil Society Organization

DISO

District Internal Security Officer

DOCAHWA

Dodoth Community Animal Health Workers Association

DPC

District Police Commander

FGD

Focus Group Discussion

GIS

Geographical Information System/Science

GIT

Geographic Information Technology

GPS

Global Positioning System

IG Interest Group JICAHWA

Jie Community Animal Health Workers Association

LC Local Council LDU

Local Defence Units

MP

Member of Parliament

NGO

Non-Governmental Organization

DWO

District Water Officer

OPM

Office of the Prime Minister

RDC

Resident District Commissioner

UPDF

Uganda People’s Defence Forces

UWA

Uganda Wildlife Authority

2017 REPORT

5

1

MAPPING OF GRAZING AREAS IN KARAMOJA INTEREST GROUP ON GRAZING AREAS

Introduction

L

ocated in North-Eastern Uganda, Karamoja region covers 27,511 km² and is composed of the districts Kaabong, Abim, Kotido, Moroto, Napak, Nakapiripirit and Amudat.

The region is home to a cluster of different pastoralist and agro-pastoralist groups including the Karimojong, Jie, Dodoth, Pokot, Ethur, Tepes, Ik, Nyangia and Ngiporein. While the Karimojong, Jie and Dodoth traditionally rely on a combination of pastoralism and opportunistic crop cultivation, the Pokot are almost purely pastoralist. The Ethur engage in both cultivation and livestock keeping, but generally place more emphasis on the former.

Karamoja is characterized by harsh climatic conditions, including erratic rainfall, frequent droughts, patchy vegetation and scarce water resources. In order to cope with resulting seasonal and spatial variations in the availability of water and pasture, pastoralist communities in the region crucially rely on extensive use of rangelands for livestock herding and high levels of herd mobility (cf. e.g. Gray 2000, Markakis 2004, Stites et al. 2007). Traditionally, grazing areas in pastoralist contexts are held under customary tenure that cater for the complex needs of pastoralist communities, granting herders and livestock secure access and use rights to pasture throughout the year based on intricate, reciprocal arrangements (cf. e.g. Cotula 2007, Fratkin 2001, Nori et al. 2008).

Over the past decades, however, pastoralist livelihood and land tenure systems in Karamoja, have been severely disrupted due to a number of different factors. Under colonial rule, pastoralists’ access to grazing areas was curtailed, among others, by the drawing of boundaries that did not reflect social realities and the forcible acquisition of lands by British authorities to cater for incoming church missions and the establishment of government headquarters (cf. Mamdani 1982). More pasture lands were alienated from pastoralists’ control and management when after 1950 large tracts of land in Karamoja were gazetted as controlled hunting

6

2017 REPORT

areas, wildlife reserves and Kidepo National Park until, by 1965, almost 95% of the total land in Karamoja had been gazetted for conservation purposes. This persisted until 2002, when significant parts of protected areas in the region were degazetted to make available more land for human settlement and agriculture (cf.

Krätli 2010, Rugadya et al. 2010).

Adding to that, for decades Karamoja region was shaken by violent conflict, mostly in the form of armed cattle raiding, forcing pastoralists to abandon traditional grazing patterns and concentrate herds around protected kraals managed by the UPDF (cf. e.g.

Stites et al. 2007, Stites/Akabwai 2010).

Following the disarmament campaign conducted by the Government of Uganda for most of the 2000s as well as peace-building efforts by civil society and key stakeholders, the security situation in Karamoja has improved significantly and pastoralists are gradually returning to their traditional grazing patterns (cf. CELEP 2015).

However, in doing so, they are facing new challenges emerging from competing land uses that have taken root in the region.

These range from the expansion of agricultural lands and resulting de-facto privatisation of former grazing areas to elite capture of land to large-scale land acquisitions by investors, predominantly for agriculture and mining. Indeed, mining licenses, mostly for exploration, have been assigned to almost 62% of Karamoja’s surface. This is taking place at the backdrop of climate change that has aggravated the unreliability of weather patterns, leading to intensification of droughts and flooding.

Furthermore, for over half a century development interventions, failing to understand and appreciate the rationale of pastoralism, have aimed at sedentarizing pastoralist communities, promoting the adoption of settled agriculture and so-called ‘alternative livelihoods’ (cf. Levine 2010, Stites/Akabwai 2010).

MAPPING OF GRAZING AREAS IN KARAMOJA INTEREST GROUP ON GRAZING AREAS

This pressure to settle coupled with the developments in land use and ownership outlined above severely threaten pastoralism as a livelihood in Karamoja and have increased the competition for land between different land users, thereby raising the potential for conflict and challenging the resilience of Karamoja’s population.

Moreover, no comprehensive data exists on presently available grazing areas, migratory routes, water sources, conflict hotspots or livestock services, which has made it difficult to monitor the abovementioned developments and has led to the spread of rumours and hearsay.

It is against this background that the Interest Group (IG) on Grazing Areas, in line with recommendations generated from the Multi-Stakeholder Meeting on Land and Land-Related Conflicts held in Kotido in 2014, developed and implemented a participatory approach to map out grazing areas, migratory routes and

MAPPING OF GRAZING AREAS IN KARAMOJA INTEREST GROUP ON GRAZING AREAS

related aspects in Karamoja to contribute to an enhanced understanding of changes in grazing areas and migratory patterns in the region, their drivers and implications.

This report details the two main outputs of the mapping exercise: the geo-referenced digitized sketch maps produced by the participants of consultations held in all Karamoja districts and the narratives associated with the different maps. It outlines findings applying to the entire sub-region while at the same time highlighting specifics of certain groups or districts. Case studies aim to provide further insights into the different themes and analyse the roles of and relationships between actors relevant to the respective case study. The report starts with a brief background to the Interest Group on Grazing Areas and the mapping exercise, followed by an outline of the methodological approach and implementation process. This is crucial to allow for adequate contextualisation of the findings.

2017 REPORT

7

MAPPING OF GRAZING AREAS IN KARAMOJA INTEREST GROUP ON GRAZING AREAS

2

Background to the Interest Group on Grazing Areas and the Mapping Exercise

T

he Interest Group (IG) on Grazing Areas in Karamoja works towards the peaceful co-existence of pastoralists and other land users in Karamoja and its surroundings. It currently comprises twelve national and international non-governmental and community based organisations, and one academic institution.

The IG on Grazing Areas is one of thirteen interest groups operating in Teso and Karamoja as part of a larger multi-stakeholder process on land and Land-Related conflicts in the

8

2017 REPORT

two sub-regions. Like other interest groups, the IG on Grazing Areas derives its mandate from the Multi-Stakeholder Meetings on Land and Land-Related Conflicts that have been held annually in Teso and Karamoja since 2014.

During the first Multi Stakeholder Meeting the following issues and concerns were raised in relation to grazing areas in Karamoja: grazing areas increasingly being usurped by agricultural fields, pastoralist mobility being impaired by boundary and border conflicts, land acquisitions along livestock corridors and limited access to water sources. In light of this, a key recommendation of the stakeholders to

MAPPING OF GRAZING AREAS IN KARAMOJA INTEREST GROUP ON GRAZING AREAS

the IG on Grazing Areas was to carry out a mapping exercise in Karamoja to generate information on existing grazing areas, their size and concentration, livestock corridors, migratory routes and conflicts related to grazing in the region.

Following this recommendation, the IG on Grazing Areas developed a comprehensive methodological approach engaging diverse representatives from all Karamoja sub-counties in consultations to develop sketch maps and narratives around the following themes: grazing areas, seasonal grazing areas, livestock migratory routes, conflict hotspots, as well as water sources and livestock services.

In doing so, the IG aimed to achieve the following objectives: 1. Generate knowledge on grazing areas, migratory routes, conflict hotspots, water resources and livestock services, as well as relevant drivers of change, to inform programs and interventions in Karamoja and contribute to pastoralist advocacy and policy development processes; 2. Contribute to the mitigation of conflicts related to grazing areas and pastoralist mobility, improved planning and service delivery through enhanced knowledge of grazing and migratory patterns of pastoralists in Karamoja and neighboring regions.

2017 REPORT

9

3

MAPPING OF GRAZING AREAS IN KARAMOJA INTEREST GROUP ON GRAZING AREAS

Methodological Approach to the Mapping Exercise

I

mplementation of the mapping exercise was preceded by a series of IG internal meetings to develop a conflict-sensitive and participatory methodological approach to the mapping. This approach was designed in a way that would ensure the participation of a large number of different stakeholder groups and set out principles to minimize any potential negative consequences that may be associated with such a comprehensive exercise and its outputs. Most importantly, it was agreed that the exercise would not intend to assess available grazing areas in terms of their size and boundaries and establish ‘universal facts’ or one ‘true narrative’ on the various themes addressed in this report. Rather, it would aim at capturing the diversity of perspectives, perceptions and lived experience of the people consulted. In an attempt to avoid misinterpretations and misuse of the maps, it was furthermore decided that the final maps would not be presented in isolation, but accompanied by the narratives shared during their production to allow for proper contextualisation.

The importance of narratives furthermore arose from the recognition that spatial mapping of grazing areas may be challenging in pastoralist societies. Due to the high levels of mobility and seasonal use of different resources, space available for grazing is often perceived as fluid and temporary, determined by climatic conditions and resource availability, rather than static and permanent (cf. e.g. Karplus/Meir 2013). Such dynamics are difficult to plot in maps designed to depict fixed locations or boundaries and therefore called for the combined use of spatial and narrative methods.

Facing these complexities, the IG, with invaluable support from Makerere University, decided to employ a mixed-method approach to the mapping, combining Participatory GIS Mapping (PGIS) with focus group discussions and so-called general mapping. These methods are briefly explained below:

10

2017 REPORT

•

•

•

Participatory GIS Mapping (PGIS): PGIS integrates Participatory Learning Action (PLA) methods with Geographic Information Technologies (GIT). In employing this method, participants were encouraged to develop sketch maps on the following themes based on their knowledge and experience: grazing areas, seasonality, livestock migratory routes, conflict hotspots, water sources and livestock services.

Maps were drawn on the present and past situations to assess relevant changes and encourage discussions on their causes and drivers. These maps were later geo-referenced and translated into digital format.

Focus Group Discussions: For each theme, a semi-structured focus group questionnaire was administered either during or after the development of sketch maps to generate narratives revolving around the themes portrayed in the sketch maps. This was in order to gain a deeper understanding of the respective issues, capture relevant aspects that could not be adequately represented on the maps and, importantly, avoid misinterpretation of the maps at a later stage.

General Mapping: General mapping is designed to allow for the graphic visualization of the different actors relevant to a specific case study, their roles, spheres of influence and relationships. This method was implemented as a last step during community consultations to allow for in-depth analysis of some of the case studies emerging from the sketch maps.

When this approach was approved by the stakeholders at the third Multi-Stakeholder Meeting on Land and Land-Related Conflicts in Karamoja in March 2016, the IG embarked upon the implementation of the exercise. The specific steps, considerations and methods applied during the exercise are outlined in more detail below.

MAPPING OF GRAZING AREAS IN KARAMOJA INTEREST GROUP ON GRAZING AREAS

Regional Inception Workshop In March 2016 the mapping exercise was kicked off with a regional inception workshop in Moroto. This workshop brought together a variety of stakeholders including representatives of district local government, conservation agencies, the security sector, traditional leaders from Karamoja and neighbouring regions as well as national and international civil society to inform them about the exercise, its purpose and approach, and seek for their feedback and guidance.

Community Consultations and Sketch Mapping After the inception workshop, community consultations and sketch mapping were piloted in Napak in April 2016. The resulting lessons learned were crucial to the process and allowed the IG to further refine and adapt its methodological approach before the exercise was eventually rolled out to the remaining Karamoja districts in July 2016. Due to these changes, the consultations in Napak were repeated in November 2016 to ensure consistency of the maps and information available for all districts.

In all districts, one-day consultations were held, involving selected kraal leaders, youth/herders, women, LC 3 representatives from all sub-counties as well as representatives of relevant district offices. The consultations were guided by five facilitators from five different Karamoja districts who had been trained on the methods prior to the pilot exercise in Napak. Specifically, the community consultations included the following steps: 1.

Developing a district base map: In the plenary, participants were asked to list important landmarks in their respective districts, including mountains, major rivers, roads, settlements or protected areas, which were then sketched on the base map.

2.

Developing sketch maps per theme: At this step, participants were divided into five groups, with each group consisting of kraal leaders, herders, women representatives, Local Council 3 representatives and opinion leaders. Under the guidance of one facilitator, each group, generally consisting of about 5-10 participants, developed sketch maps on one of the five following themes: grazing areas, seasonality, livestock migratory routes, conflict hotspots and livestock services including water sources. For all themes, maps were sketched on the present and past situations, apart from seasonality which involved the sketching of present wet and dry season maps.

The time period constituting the ‘past’ and the ‘present’ per theme was determined by the participants of each group, based on their knowledge and experience. Consequently, the given time periods vary from one group to another. Then,

3.

4.

depending on the theme they worked on, participants were asked to list past and present grazing areas, migratory routes, conflict hotspots, water sources and livestock services or seasonal grazing areas known to them, before spatially plotting them on the base maps. In doing so, participants focused on their respective districts, but also included relevant locations outside their districts, paying tribute to the fact that, traditionally, pastoralists’ migration is determined by climatic conditions and resource availability, rather than administrative borders.

Focus group discussions: Facilitators administered the semi-structured, theme-specific questionnaire either during or after the development of sketch maps, depending on how discussions had been evolving in the group.

General mapping: Lastly, group participants were encouraged to select one or more case studies emerging from their sketch maps for deeper analysis with regard to the actors involved, their roles, relationships and spheres of influence.

The outcomes of these case study analyses were graphically visualized in schemas, as shown below:

The topic in the core circle represents the case study for analysis, in this case Lokilotor Grazing Area in Namalu. The circles placed around the core circle depict the different actors involved. Their respective spheres of influence are reflected in the position of the circle. The closer a circle is positioned to the core circle, the more influence the respective actor has with respect to the issue. The roles of respective actors are outlined in additional tables.

2017 REPORT

11

MAPPING OF GRAZING AREAS IN KARAMOJA INTEREST GROUP ON GRAZING AREAS

Data Compilation and IG Internal Review Processes On the day following the consultations, facilitators and documenters compiled their notes and prepared reports of the findings, with support from the Makerere University team and IG lead organisation, before moving on to the next district.

Once the consultations had been completed in all districts, the Makerere team translated the sketch maps into digital format, transferring all information onto the GIS base layers which form the maps. District maps were joined to generate regional maps on the five themes so as to provide a more comprehensive perspective on the entire region.

Date March 2016 April 2016 July 2016 November 2016 November 2016 December 2016

12

Event Regional Inception Workshop Pilot Consultation Main Consultations District-Level Validations Main Consultation Regional Validation Workshop

2017 REPORT

Validation of Findings In November, 2016 validations of the draft digital maps and preliminary findings were conducted with selected participants of the consultations at district level. Apart from validating initial results, this allowed the IG to follow up on aspects and questions that had arisen during data analysis. The district-level validations were then followed by a regional validation event in December 2016 that, similar to the inception workshop, brought together a large number of stakeholders for further input and feedback to consider in the finalization of the reports.

The feedback generated during validations has been integrated into this report.

Location Moroto Napak Abim, Kaabong, Kotido, Nakapiripirit, Amudat, Moroto Abim, Kaabong, Kotido, Nakapiripirit, Amudat, Moroto Napak Moroto

MAPPING OF GRAZING AREAS IN KARAMOJA INTEREST GROUP ON GRAZING AREAS

BASEMAP

Interest Group on Grazing Areas

This is a social map reflecting perspectives generated during participatory community consultations. It has been extracted from the report ‘Mapping of Grazing Areas in Karamoja’ by the Interest Group on Grazing Areas, 2017.

2017 REPORT

13

MAPPING OF GRAZING AREAS IN KARAMOJA INTEREST GROUP ON GRAZING AREAS

14

2017 REPORT

MAPPING OF GRAZING AREAS IN KARAMOJA INTEREST GROUP ON GRAZING AREAS

2017 REPORT

15

4

MAPPING OF GRAZING AREAS IN KARAMOJA INTEREST GROUP ON GRAZING AREAS

Grazing Areas and Patterns, Past and Present

I

n order to cope with the varying availability of pasture and water resources typical for pastoralist areas, herders and their livestock rely on extensive use of rangelands and high levels of mobility. The maps presented in this section portray grazing areas in the past and present, as perceived by participants working on this theme. The time frames chosen for the past and the present maps stretch from 1918-2005 and 1980-2016 respectively. 1 The maps show clearly that grazing areas and patterns have changed considerably over time. In the past grazing was practiced extensively on vast stretches of land, transcending regional as well as district borders. Presently, grazing areas in most districts have reduced significantly in size as more land is being used for other purposes, such as agriculture or mining. At the same time, cross-border grazing, both within and outside the region, has reduced.

4.1 Past Grazing Areas (1918-2005) This map displays the time period 1918-2005. During that time grazing was the dominant form of land use in most of Karamoja region. Grazing was practiced extensively, transcending administrative as well as ethnic boundaries.

In periods of drought, pastoralists would migrate into the neighbouring regions including Teso, Acholi and Bugisu.

Grazing areas were held communally, with individual herders enjoying access and use rights. Participants across the region noted that in the past, access to and use of grazing

1

areas was controlled by elders and kraal leaders who also made decisions on migrations and punishments in case set rules were violated. However, if grazing was practiced outside the group’s known territory, prior permission had to be sought from the respective host community. For this purpose, community meetings would be held, during which the group requesting access to a particular grazing area outside its domain would kill a bull for the host community, before a reciprocal agreement was made.

The period displayed on this map also witnessed the establishment of numerous protected areas such as Kidepo National Park in 1962. In some of these areas grazing was tolerated to a limited extent through collaborative arrangements.

In Abim, participants noted that, generally, more land was available for grazing in the past as agricultural fields were still fertile and people had not yet started to alienate grazing areas for cultivation purposes. However, they also recalled a time in the 1970s when grazing was greatly restricted and Ethur communities started to form clusters due to the heightened insecurity resulting from an increase in cattle raids. Owing to its volatile nature, this period is referred to as “Rapa-Rapa� by the Ethur, loosely translated as massive raids. During that time vast stretches land was occupied by wild animals, not least due to the dwindling numbers of livestock lost to raids. The phenomenon of clustered settlements emerging for security purposes in times of conflict was also recalled by participants in Kaabong.

Each group in each district was given the opportunity to define the timeframes for past and present, usually based on their knowledge and memory of certain times. For the purpose of this report, which gives a regional perspective, rather than district specific perspectives on the different themes, the time periods for the regional maps have been harmonized, using the earliest and latest year mentioned for a specific theme as respective reference points.

16

2017 REPORT

MAPPING OF GRAZING AREAS IN KARAMOJA INTEREST GROUP ON GRAZING AREAS

Map2: Past Grazing Areas in Karamoja

Interest Group on Grazing Areas

This is a social map reflecting perspectives generated during participatory community consultations. It has been extracted from the report ‘Mapping of Grazing Areas in Karamoja’ by the Interest Group on Grazing Areas, 2017.

2017 REPORT

17

MAPPING OF GRAZING AREAS IN KARAMOJA INTEREST GROUP ON GRAZING AREAS

Examples of past grazing areas used by the different pastoralist and agro-pastoralist groups can be found in the table below:

Name of Grazing Area Kodike, Nakwakipi and Komolo Obwolo, Olulung, and Okiling Moruita, Ocoricor and Loroo Lokupel, Sopil, Lokapel, Moruitit and Kokuwam Naroo, Kapeta, Aduko, Amutumare and Lobeel Lotisan, Locor-Akwangan, Iriwon, Nanam and Moru-Apolon Namalu-Lokilotor, Atumutaok, Moruita and Moru-Ajore

4.2 Present Grazing Areas (1980-2016) This map displays grazing areas in the time period 19802016. This period can be divided into the years 1980– 2009 when most of Karamoja was still insecure, and the years 2009-2016 when relative peace was gradually achieved in the region following the completion of the government’s disarmament exercise. This time period also witnessed the establishment of so-called ‘protected kraals’ across the region when insecurity was still rampant. Under this system soldiers were put in charge of guarding livestock, as opposed to herders. While this ensured security, the limited mobility of livestock herds during that time, frequently resulted in the depletion of resources around the respective kraals with detrimental effects to livestock health.

18

2017 REPORT

If compared to the past, grazing areas and patterns have changed significantly. Since relative peace has been achieved in the region, many people have left their former villages in search of fertile land and settled on former grazing areas, often alienating vast stretches of land for cultivation purposes. In Moroto, participants noted that grazing areas in several sub-counties are also increasingly affected by mining activities. These developments have led to a considerable reduction in the space available for grazing across the region. Participants in Abim stated that the few grazing areas remaining are concentrated at the tops and foot hills of the mountains and hills, along the streams and rivers and also along the borders. In Kaabong, it was noted that some communities have started tethering and zero grazing of livestock, especially during the wet season, as most land is used for cultivation. Moreover, some grazing areas in Kamion, though rich with palatable pasture, are largely inaccessible to herders due to tse-tse fly infestation. Furthermore, the quality of pasture was reported to have been deteriorated, especially with regard to the availability of mineral licks and water points.

Encroachment on conservation areas has increased due to the rising number of settlements, enhanced agricultural activity and search for pasture.

Generally, these developments and emergence of relatively new land use forms have increased the risk for conflict between pastoralists and other land users.

Although grazing areas are still held communally, changes can be observed in access rights and resulting grazing patterns. Grazing, which formerly used to transcend administrative and ethnic borders, is now largely limited to sub-counties and districts. In Kotido participants stated that they would inform local leaders prior to crossing into another sub-county with their herds. If they are to migrate into another district, both authorities from Kotido district and the respective host district are to be informed. Participants across the region mentioned that nowadays there are a number of rules to adhere to when grazing, including among others respect for agricultural fields, shrines and sacred places, branding of animals for easy identification, application of the ‘Moruitit resolution’ or ‘Nabilatuk resolution’ in case of livestock theft.

MAPPING OF GRAZING AREAS IN KARAMOJA INTEREST GROUP ON GRAZING AREAS

Map3: Present Grazing Areas in Karamoja

Interest Group on Grazing Areas

This is a social map reflecting perspectives generated during participatory community consultations. It has been extracted from the report ‘Mapping of Grazing Areas in Karamoja’ by the Interest Group on Grazing Areas, 2017.

2017 REPORT

19

MAPPING OF GRAZING AREAS IN KARAMOJA INTEREST GROUP ON GRAZING AREAS

Examples of present grazing areas used by the different pastoralist and agro-pastoralist groups can be found in the table below:

Name of Grazing Area

Teso region in the west, Lokilotor grazing area consists of several grazing lands that stretch right from the South of Namalu to Kween, Bulambuli, Teso and Napak. It was selected for further analysis because it is shared by different communities, stretches over a vast area of land, has numerous water points and is used throughout the year.

Kocholut, Arechek and Turtuko

Abuk, Ayeye, and Apok

Karita, Amudat, Chosan, Lotiir and Loroo

Kamoni, Nakui, Lotede, Lokitelarengan, Lokapel, Kamukoi and Morulem

Naroo, Aduko Schema showing relationship of actors in play over access and management of Lokilotor Grazing Area

Kobebe, Apopong-Kaloe, Nakiloro, Naut and Nakonyen

Nabilatuk, Kakomongole, Moruita and Namalu-Lokilotor

4.3 Case study: Lokilotor Grazing Area, Nakapiripirit Lokilotor grazing area in Namalu sub-county, Nakapiripirit, was chosen as a case study for further analysis. Bordering

20

2017 REPORT

As shown in the schema above and in the table, the most influential actors with regard to regulating access and managing this grazing area are the kraal leaders who oversee the administration of the kraals and herders who are usually the youth. These come together to make decisions on access, herding patterns and management of the grazing area. The local leaders are engaged for peace dialogues in case of disagreements over access and use of the grazing area. The UPDF provides security of the cattle as they graze. NGOs provide support in form of training, community mobilization and facilitating resource sharing processes.

MAPPING OF GRAZING AREAS IN KARAMOJA INTEREST GROUP ON GRAZING AREAS

Lokilotor Grazing Area – Actors and Roles Actors

Roles and responsibilities

Kraal leaders

• Overall administrators of the kraal • Provide information regarding the quantity of water/pasture vis-a-vis the number of livestock in the area • Represent the kraal in the grazing areas of other districts in case of migration

Elders

• Call for meetings to take decisions after having received information from the kraal leaders • Give guidance during dialogue meetings on how to solve disputes or conflicts • Help in containing the influx of herders from other districts

Herders

• • • • •

Herd livestock Follow grazing rules and respect boundaries Protect the kraals from wild animals and raids Provide information regarding the health of livestock Ensure that livestock do not contaminate water points while watering

District Local Government

• • • • • •

Vaccination of livestock and training of CAHWs on livestock health Monitor the condition of water points Repair and replace damaged water points Train and supervise water user committees Lobby for support from development partners Help to construct new water points for domestic and production purposes

UPDF/LDUs & POLICE/ ASTU

• • • • •

Ensure security of livestock in kraals to prevent theft Track and follow missing livestock Aid in the recovery of stolen livestock Ensure that livestock inventories are true and accurate on a daily basis Arrest livestock thieves

Peace committee

• Resolves conflicts that arise in grazing areas and at watering points • Conducts peace dialogue meetings in the grazing area • Works with other peace actors to ensure that there is peace with neighboring sub counties and districts as well

RDC

• Monitor the work of UPDF and other security officers in the district • Oversee government programmes in the district

LCs

• Pass on information to higher level of government regarding the condition & quality of pasture and water points • Welcome/receive visitors on behalf of the community • Call for dialogue meetings in case of conflicts

Women

• Welcome visitors • Provide food to the herders • Fetch water and firewood

UWA

• Control poaching and land encroachment within the game reserve

2017 REPORT

21

MAPPING OF GRAZING AREAS IN KARAMOJA INTEREST GROUP ON GRAZING AREAS

22

2017 REPORT

MAPPING OF GRAZING AREAS IN KARAMOJA INTEREST GROUP ON GRAZING AREAS

2017 REPORT

23

5

MAPPING OF GRAZING AREAS IN KARAMOJA INTEREST GROUP ON GRAZING AREAS

Seasonal Grazing Areas and Patterns

K

aramoja region experiences two main seasons per year: the dry and the wet season. However, narratives during consultations revealed that these two seasons can be further broken down into: ‘akamu’ (dry), ‘akiceret’ (post dry), ‘akiporo’ (pre wet), and ‘atieth’ (wet) seasons. There was an agreement in most districts that dry season starts in the month of October and runs up to the month of February, while the wet season starts from the month of March and runs up to the month of September. The maps presented in this section portray available dry and wet season grazing areas, as perceived by participants working on this theme. The maps for the dry and wet seasons were both generated for present grazing patterns.

During dry season climatic conditions often compel pastoralists and livestock to migrate for long distances in search of pasture and water, crossing district as well as regional borders, if necessary. In contrast, grazing during the wet season focuses mainly on the sub-counties of the respective districts, since this season comes with abundance of both, pasture and water.

5.1 Dry Season Grazing Areas (October-February) This map displays present grazing areas during the dry season. The map suggests that in the dry season almost all available land in the region could be used for grazing since there is hardly any agricultural activity taking place. In fact, since agriculture is almost entirely rain-fed in Karamoja, cultivation during dry season is practiced only near water points, in green belts or under irrigation. However, despite the vast availability of land, grazing is greatly curtailed during dry season, since most grazing areas are

24

2017 REPORT

dry and wiped clear of tender and nutritious pasture. Once water points have dried up, the respective grazing areas are usually abandoned completely. As a consequence, pastoralists and livestock are compelled to move long distances in search of pasture and water, sometimes crossing over to neighbouring districts and regions. Participants in Kotido stated that during dry season the Jie move into Abim and Napak, as well as Kitgum and Agago, in search of resources. Pastoralists from Nakapiripirit were said to move up to Katakwi during dry season, while herders from Amudat were reported to move into Nakapiripirit and Moroto.

Grazing areas that hold on to a bit of moisture in the dry season are left to shoulder all the remaining livestock, which in turn often leads to degradation and conflicts over limited resources.

Participants from several districts stated that encroachment on protected areas such as Kidepo Valley National Park in Kaabong, Pian-Upe Game Reserve in Nakapiripirit and Amudat, as well as Bokora-Matheniko Game Reserve in Napak and Moroto is common during dry season, increasing competition for resources between livestock and wildlife and the risk of conflict between conservation agencies and pastoralists.

In dry season pastoralists are more likely to experience increased mortality rates of livestock in case of disease outbreaks, reduction in milk yields and emaciation of livestock, decreasing the value of livestock in the market.

In cases where the dry season turns into drought, grazing areas are often set on fire to stimulate the growth of tender vegetative pasture once the rains come – a practice that has been carried out for time immemorial.

MAPPING OF GRAZING AREAS IN KARAMOJA INTEREST GROUP ON GRAZING AREAS

Map4: Dry Season Grazing Areas used in Karamoja

Interest Group on Grazing Areas

This is a social map reflecting perspectives generated during participatory community consultations. It has been extracted from the report ‘Mapping of Grazing Areas in Karamoja’ by the Interest Group on Grazing Areas, 2017.

2017 REPORT

25

MAPPING OF GRAZING AREAS IN KARAMOJA INTEREST GROUP ON GRAZING AREAS

Examples of selected dry season grazing areas used by the different pastoralist and agro-pastoralist groups can be found in the table below:

Name of Grazing Area Kotipe, Sising, and Korisae

Aliling, Ocor-Angakinei, and Aywelu

Moruita, Lotorosa, Naporokocha, Napeded and Achoricor

ties of the respective district.

The wet season witnesses an increase in herder-cultivator conflicts within the districts since the farmlands abandoned during dry season are cultivated again. This situation was voiced particularly in Kotido and Napak districts. Conflicts amongst herders over resources, on the contrary, reduce significantly during this season due to the availability of water and pasture. Similarly, conservation areas experience less encroachment.

During the wet season the condition of livestock improves in terms of growth, milk yields, and health, increasing their market value. Also, veterinary services are easily accessible during this season due to the reduced movement.

Examples of selected wet season grazing areas used by the different pastoralist and agro-pastoralist groups can be found in the table below:

Name of Grazing Area Usake, Kolele, Loyoro, Kamion and Lobalangit Kotipe, Lokichar, Lodwara-Melu and Lokosowan Kapus, Kailong, Aduko, Kopuwa and Longorkipi Acuro, Angolepak, Loyoroit and Angaro Nakonyen, Kobebe,Lolung and Natapar-Akwangan

Namalera, Losidok, Katabok, Lokales, Naporokocha, Lopedot and Lokoma

Magoro, Kalomuriaputh and Nakiloro

5.2 Wet Season Grazing Areas (MarchSeptember) This map displays present grazing areas during the wet season.

In the wet season, agricultural activity is taken up again, bringing about a reduction in available grazing areas. Nevertheless, the wet season witnesses a flourishing of agriculture and pastoralism alike, as the soil is enriched with moisture and begets tender lush palatable pasture for livestock. Water points are filling up and so grazing areas can support livestock again. Wet season also witnesses the return of herders and livestock that had migrated during the dry season to their respective grazing areas. Across the region, it was noted that grazing patterns in the wet season nowadays concentrate mainly on the sub-coun-

26

2017 REPORT

Loyoro, Kamoni, Lotim, Kokuwam, Lobolei, Kurao, Napore and Sangar Lotiir, Toror, Lobeel, Lolelia, Nangolo-Apolon and Longor Lomoru-Arengan, Loroo, Apule, Kakingol, and Moru-Ariwon

Kakomongole, Loregae, and Namalu-Lokilotor

MAPPING OF GRAZING AREAS IN KARAMOJA INTEREST GROUP ON GRAZING AREAS

Map5: Wet Season Grazing Areas Used in Karamoja

Interest Group on Grazing Areas

This is a social map reflecting perspectives generated during participatory community consultations. It has been extracted from the report ‘Mapping of Grazing Areas in Karamoja’ by the Interest Group on Grazing Areas, 2017.

2017 REPORT

27

MAPPING OF GRAZING AREAS IN KARAMOJA INTEREST GROUP ON GRAZING AREAS

5.3 Case Study: Nakonyen Grazing Area, Moroto Nakonyen grazing area and water point in Tapac sub-county, Moroto district, was chosen as a case study for further analysis because of its steady supply of water throughout the year. The grazing area is fed by Nakonyen River, making its pasture tender. It is accessed mostly by pastoralists from Moroto. In the dry season, herders from Amudat and Kenya come to graze their livestock as well.

As can be seen in the schema and table below, nine key actors control the access, use and management of Nakonyen grazing area, including UPDF, herders, kraal leaders, peace committees and elders. Most prominent in the control of access are herders, kraal leaders and the UPDF, while others play a more subsidiary role.

Schema showing relationship of actors in play over access and management of Nakonyen Grazing Area

28

2017 REPORT

MAPPING OF GRAZING AREAS IN KARAMOJA INTEREST GROUP ON GRAZING AREAS

Nakonyen Grazing Area - Actors and Roles Actors

Roles

Kraal leaders

• Overall administrators of the kraal • Provide information regarding the quantity of water/pasture vis-a-vis the number of livestock in the area • Representative of the kraal in all aspects concerning livestock • Represent the kraal in the grazing areas of other districts in case of migration

Herders

• • • •

Elders

• Call for meetings to take decisions after getting information the kraal leaders • Give guidance during dialogue meetings on how to solve disputes or conflicts • Help in containing the influx of grazers from outside the district

LCs

• Pass on information to higher level of government regarding the condition & quality of pasture and water points • Welcome/receive visitors on behalf of the community • Call for dialogue meetings in case of conflicts

UPDF/LDUs

• • • • •

MP

• Monitor the security of livestock and people in the grazing areas • Get information from the kraal leaders concerning the grazing areas

District Local Government

• Provide water points for livestock like dams • Monitor livestock health and provide necessary services like vaccination among others • Empower and equip Community Animal Health Workers workers (CAHWs) with enough drugs so as to treat sick livestock in the kraals when migrating in other districts

Women

• Fetch water and fire wood in the kraal • Support herders in livestock watering • Build shelters for weak calves and children in the kraal

Peace committee

• Resolves conflicts that arise in the grazing areas and watering points • Conducts peace dialogue meetings in the grazing area • Works with other peace actors to ensure that there is peace with neighboring sub counties and districts as well

Follow grazing rules and respect boundaries Protect the kraals from wild animals and raids Provide information regarding the health of livestock Ensure that livestock do not contaminate water points while watering

Ensure security of livestock in kraals to prevent theft Track and follow missing livestock Aid in the recovery of stolen livestock Ensure that livestock inventories are true and accurate on a daily basis Arrest livestock thieves

2017 REPORT

29

6

MAPPING OF GRAZING AREAS IN KARAMOJA INTEREST GROUP ON GRAZING AREAS

Livestock Migratory Routes, Past and Present

M

obility is crucial for pastoralist groups in Karamoja so as to be able to cope with variations in the availability of pasture and water.

The maps presented in this section portray livestock migratory routes in the past and present, as perceived by participants working on this theme. Migratory routes are the pathways that are followed by herders and their livestock in search of resources. The timeframes chosen for the past and the present maps stretch from 1950 -2004 and 2000-2016, respectively.

There are two major forms of migrations that can be distinguished among pastoralists in Karamoja. Short-term migrations are usually triggered by regular seasonal changes, where herders temporarily migrate to a new location to access pasture, water or salty grass for their livestock. Once the rains reappear, they return to their places of residence.

Long-term migration is triggered by climate extremes, such as extended dry spells and droughts. In this case, migrating groups move far away from their places of residence in search of pasture and water for an extended period of time. Sometimes they return to their points of departure only in small numbers when the climate shock/ extreme subsides, or not at all.

The maps indicate that migratory routes and patterns have changed considerably over time. Most migrations are now short-term and often limited by district borders, as opposed to the past when long term and long-distance migrations were still common. This is partly due to the increased availability of water resources in the districts, ren-

30

2017 REPORT

dering long-term movement less necessary. At the same time migratory patterns have been affected by competing land uses, most importantly agriculture and mining.

6.1 Past Livestock Migratory Routes (1950-2004) This map displays livestock migratory routes in the time period 1950-2004, before the districts of Kaabong, Abim, Napak, Nakapiripirit and Amudat had been carved out of Kotido and Moroto district respectively. District names mentioned in this section therefore always refer to the territory that is presently covered by the respective district.

In the past, different pastoralist groups from Karamoja and beyond used to move across the region in search of water and pasture, including the Jie, Dodoth, Matheniko, Pian, Pokot as well as the Turkana and Toposa. In Kaabong, apart from the resident Dodoth, migrating groups included the Jie, Turkana and Toposa. Moroto was frequented by the resident Matheniko, the Jie, Bokoroa, Pokot, Dodoth and Turkana, whereas in Amudat it was mainly the Pokot who moved across the area.

During the dry season migratory routes used to take herders and their livestock westwards to Abim, Napak as well as to neighbouring regions such as Acholi, Teso, and Lango, where water and pasture were more abundant. Participants in Abim recalled regular dry season migrations into their district by the Jie, Turkana, Dodoth, Bokora, Matheniko and Pian pastoralists, often resulting in conflicts between incoming and resident pastoralists. At the end of the dry season, the members of these groups would

MAPPING OF GRAZING AREAS IN KARAMOJA INTEREST GROUP ON GRAZING AREAS

Map6: Past Livestock Migratory Routes in Karamoja

Interest Group on Grazing Areas

This is a social map reflecting perspectives generated during participatory community consultations. It has been extracted from the report ‘Mapping of Grazing Areas in Karamoja’ by the Interest Group on Grazing Areas, 2017.

2017 REPORT

31

MAPPING OF GRAZING AREAS IN KARAMOJA INTEREST GROUP ON GRAZING AREAS then follow the same route back to their former areas of departure until the next trigger of migration. During wet season grazing and related migrations were less extensive in terms of distance, and often motivated by the search of salty pasture, referred to as akisam. The Ethur agro-pastoralists, for instance, used to migrate eastwards into Kotido and Napak in the wet season to access salty pasture for their livestock.

Route

The pastoralist groups crisscrossing the region habitually followed the same routes whenever they migrated.

They moved in organised groups and planned sequences, sometimes forming alliances. However, groups often split along the way to avoid competition over grazing areas and potential conflict. In Kotido, participants recalled that prior to any migration a so-called Ekajiman or Erotot in ordinary Ngakarimojong, loosely translated as hunter, would be sent out to assess the availability and quality of pasture and water. Moreover, foretellers used to be consulted, for instance, to assess the likelihood of attack in following a particular route. Definite migratory routes were then decided upon based on their observations and recommendations. Women who were part of migrating groups were responsible for fetching water and firewood, constructing shelters for calves, milking, churning milk and preparing food. In Nakapiripirit, participants mentioned that kraal leaders would be briefed and smeared with clay by elders as signs of blessings prior to their departure on long journeys. Similarly, welcoming rituals would be held once the herders and livestock returned.

Alakas-Komuret-Moruita

According to participants across the region, factors triggering migrations other than changing climatic conditions and resource availability included livestock or human disease outbreaks, tse-tse fly infestation, hunger, expansion of kraals and conflict or insecurity, among others.

Examples of selected past migratory routes include:

Route Nakiloro-Nangolebwal Apule-Omaniman-Ocoricor Katikekile-Tapac-Nakonyen and TurkanMatheniko Loregae-Namalu-Nanam Namalu-Lokitela Alokawa-Nanam

32

2017 REPORT

Alerek-Angorom Awach-Orwamuge-Olelia-Angolebwal Namalera-Cholol

Kalapata-Kawalakol-Napotipot Loyoro-Kopoth-Lolelia Lodiko-Kaabong East and West Nakapelimoru-Rengen Kotyang-Kulodwong-Agago Panyangara-Kopuwa

6.2 Present Livestock Migratory Routes (2000-2016) This map displays livestock migratory routes in the time period 2000-2016. When compared to the past map, shifts in the number and nature of migrations can be observed.

Participants across the region reported a general reduction in migrations, especially across district and regional borders. In Abim, it was noted that migration of Ethur herders has ceased almost entirely due to increased emphasis on agriculture, construction of water points in each sub-county and the practice of zero grazing. Similarly, participants in Moroto attributed the reduction in long-distance migrations to the increased availability of water resources in the district. This, however, is not to imply that cross-border movements have ceased altogether, as can be seen in the map.

Due to the increase in competing land uses across the region, migrating pastoralists presently often find their traditional migratory routes blocked by agricultural fields, new settlements, as well as mining sites, the latter be-

MAPPING OF GRAZING AREAS IN KARAMOJA INTEREST GROUP ON GRAZING AREAS

Map7: Present Livestock Migratory Routes in Karamoja

Interest Group on Grazing Areas

This is a social map reflecting perspectives generated during participatory community consultations. It has been extracted from the report ‘Mapping of Grazing Areas in Karamoja’ by the Interest Group on Grazing Areas, 2017.

2017 REPORT

33

MAPPING OF GRAZING AREAS IN KARAMOJA INTEREST GROUP ON GRAZING AREAS

ing voiced in particular in Nakapiripirit district and Moroto district. Other factors influencing present day migratory patterns include newly available water resources and livestock services, market days and veterinary services, as well as border disputes. According to participants in Kotido and Amudat districts, individual herders presently have more decision-making power over migratory routes than in the past, when elders and kraal leaders were the main decision-makers in this regard. In Kotido this change was attributed to the reduction in livestock numbers and in Amudat to the present unpredictability of available migratory routes.

Examples of selected present livestock migratory routes include:

6.3 Case Study: Kalapata-KawalakolNapotipot Migratory Route, Kaabong The route from Kalapata to Napotipot through Kawalakol was chosen as a case study for further analysis. This route was selected since it is commonly used throughout the year by the people of Kalapata, Kawalakol, Kathile as well as herders from Abim and Napak. It is short, peaceful, well drained by dams like Kapeta in Kathile, rivers like Napotipot in Kawalakol and Nalakas in Kapedo and has salty pasture.

The main actors in this route include kraal leaders, elders, the community and other players as shown in figure below.

Route Rupa-Kobebe, Kotido-Nakapelimoru-Kobebe Nakapelimoru-Panyangara-Amin-Lela-Kopua Amudat-Moruita-Kakomongole Kathile-Kalapata-Morungole Turkana-Nakiloro-Kobebe Lorengedwat-Nabilatuk-Nakayot, Lolachat-Moruangaberu Poron-Kirik Acoricor-Nangolemoru Kacheri-Lolelia-Lobalangit Nakapelimoru-Kobebe

34

2017 REPORT

Schema showing key actors in the control of access to Kalapata Livestock Migratory Route From the table and the schema above, it is clear that opinion leaders, and the kraal leaders have a domineering role in ensuring access and utilisation of this migratory route.

The other actors in the schema provide supportive roles with the UPDF providing security along the corridor.

MAPPING OF GRAZING AREAS IN KARAMOJA INTEREST GROUP ON GRAZING AREAS

Kalapata-Kawalakol-Napotipot Migratory Route - Actors and Roles Actors

Roles

Kraal leaders

• • • •

Opinion leaders

• Advise kraal leaders • Conduct rituals to appease gods and ancestors • Decide on choice of migratory routes

LCs

• Policy guidance

UPDF

• Maintain peace and security • Arrest of criminals

RDC, DISO

• Ensure security, if necessary in cooporation with the Army

NGOs, CSOs

• Provide livestock drugs along migratory corridors • Negotiate about access to grazing grounds with government

Conduct meetings with elders or opinion leaders Make decisions on choice of migratory routes Consult other kraal leaders and the army on migration issues Consult regularly with their local council leaders

2017 REPORT

35

MAPPING OF GRAZING AREAS IN KARAMOJA INTEREST GROUP ON GRAZING AREAS

36

2017 REPORT

7

MAPPING OF GRAZING AREAS IN KARAMOJA INTEREST GROUP ON GRAZING AREAS

Grazing Related Conflicts, Past and Present

C

onflicts along migratory routes and around grazing areas in the region have been a common phenomenon across Karamoja. Both past and present incidents are invariably resource centred on issues like livestock, pastureland and water sources. The maps presented in this section portray key conflict hotspots related to grazing areas and pastoralist mobility in the past and present, as perceived by participants working on this theme. The time frames chosen for the past and the present maps stretch from 1920-2008 and 1990-2016 respectively.

In the past conflicts mainly took the form of cattle raids, but found its expression also in violent disputes over access to and control of pasture and water. These confrontations oftentimes resulted in the loss of lives and property. With the completion of the disarmament exercise in Karamoja the security situation in the region greatly improved and cattle-related conflicts have reduced significantly. Land-related conflicts, however, are currently on the rise, ranging from herder-cultivator conflicts to border/boundary disputes to conflicts in the context of investment and mineral exploitation and over access to protected areas.

2017 REPORT

37

MAPPING OF GRAZING AREAS IN KARAMOJA INTEREST GROUP ON GRAZING AREAS

7.1 Past Conflict Hotspots (1920-2008)

referred to as amatida, to small firearms entering the region through international borders.

This map displays past conflict hotspots in the time period of 1920-2008. Conflicts during this period mainly took the form of armed cattle raids, as well as violent confrontations over access to and control of pasture and water.

Oftentimes these conflicts resulted in unfortunate loss of lives, livestock and property, and frequently triggered revenge and more conflict. Participants in Kaabong mentioned that water-related disputes occurred in particular during the dry season due to the overall shortage of resources. Similarly, herder-cultivator conflicts increased during dry season when pastoralists migrated westwards into Labwor, Lango, Teso and Bugisu, for instance.

With regard to past conflict resolution mechanisms, participants in Amudat mentioned that once conflicting parties would mutually recognize the need for cease fire, a dialogue meeting would be called for, during which bulls would be slaughtered and reconciliation rituals were performed. Dialogue meetings as a means of conflict resolution were also mentioned in Kaabong where participants recalled the successful settlement of a herder-cultivator conflict in Karenga in the 1970s through dialogue between the conflicting communities.

A list of selected conflict hotspots indicated on the map can be found below:

The armaments used by conflicting parties during this period changed from spears to locally made guns, commonly

Year

Location/District

Conflict

1950s

Amunyododoi, Abim

• Conflict over access to water between Jie herders and Ethur cultivators

1980s

Awach/Alerek, Abim

• Cattle raids by Jie herders • Achangali grazing area fight over water and pasture

1996

Chemakany, Amudat

• Cattle raid between Pokot and Matheniko

1920/1952

Kathile, Kaabong

• Cattle raids between Turkana and Dodoth

1945

Moroto

• Conflict over water for livestock between Matheniko and Turkana

1979

Longorikipi, Kaabong (Kidepo • Conflict over access to water between UWA and herders National Park)

1962

Moru Angaberu, Nakapiripirit

• Conflict over access to water for livestock and domestic use between the Pian and Pokot

1990

Nakonyen, Moroto

• Conflict over access to grazing land between the Tepeth and Matheniko

1998

Kocholut, Napak

• Conflict over access to grazing area for pasture and water between the Bokora and the Matheniko

1961

Lotisan, Moroto

• Conflict over access to water between the Matheniko and Turkana

38

2017 REPORT

MAPPING OF GRAZING AREAS IN KARAMOJA INTEREST GROUP ON GRAZING AREAS

Map8: Past Conflict Hotspots in Karamoja

Interest Group on Grazing Areas

This is a social map reflecting perspectives generated during participatory community consultations. It has been extracted from the report ‘Mapping of Grazing Areas in Karamoja’ by the Interest Group on Grazing Areas, 2017.

2017 REPORT

39

MAPPING OF GRAZING AREAS IN KARAMOJA INTEREST GROUP ON GRAZING AREAS

7.2 Present Conflict Hotspots (1990-2016) This map portrays present conflict hotspots in the time period 1990-2016. While armed conflict and cattle raids were still rampant during the 1990s and the 2000s, the security situation greatly improved after the completion of the disarmament exercise and fatal confrontations reduced significantly. Apart from disarmament, participants across the region also mentioned other factors contributing to relative peace in Karamoja, including the establishment of grass-root peace structures, improved communication through mobile phones, recruitment of LDUs, the establishment of protected kraals and recovery mechanisms in case of livestock theft as well as the passing of by-laws such as the “1x2+1 Resolution”. This deterrent resolution was passed by stakeholders at various meetings in the region to counter cattle thefts and is also known ‘Moruitit Resolution’ or ‘Nabilatuk Resolution’, depending on where it was agreed upon. The resolution stipulates that anyone found guilty of having stolen livestock is required to pay back twice the amount of livestock stolen, plus one extra animal for the recovery team. Participants in Amudat furthermore pointed out the positive role of faithbased organizations and churches in the reduction of cattle raids in the region, whereas participants in Abim positively acknowledged peace-building efforts by civil society.

40

2017 REPORT

Nevertheless, while cattle-related conflicts have reduced significantly and mainly take the form of petty thefts today, land-related conflicts, on the other hand, are currently on the rise. They range from conflicts over access to land and water between herders and cultivators as well as among herders to border/boundary disputes to conflicts in the context of investment and mineral exploitation and over access to protected areas. These disputes are fuelled by the increasing alienation of former grazing areas into settlements and agricultural fields, the acquisition of grazing lands for investment and mining as well as the perceived expansion of protected areas and the creation of (new) administrative boundaries. The adverse implications of these developments for pastoralist mobility have significantly increased the risk for conflict between herders and other land users as well as among herders, especially during dry season when pastoralists need to migrate in search of water and pasture.

Changes can also be observed in mechanisms for conflict resolution. While disputes in the past were usually settled by kraal leaders or elders, communities nowadays also rely on local government, security bodies and peace structures existing at different administrative levels for support in conflict resolution.

Furthermore, community dialogue meetings and mediation efforts by civil society were mentioned as means of conflict resolution by participants in various districts.

MAPPING OF GRAZING AREAS IN KARAMOJA INTEREST GROUP ON GRAZING AREAS

Map9: Present Conflict Hotspots in Karamoja

Interest Group on Grazing Areas

This is a social map reflecting perspectives generated during participatory community consultations. It has been extracted from the report ‘Mapping of Grazing Areas in Karamoja’ by the Interest Group on Grazing Areas, 2017.

2017 REPORT

41

MAPPING OF GRAZING AREAS IN KARAMOJA INTEREST GROUP ON GRAZING AREAS

Examples of present conflict hotpots are listed here below: Location/District Conflict Naput, Moroto

Conflicts related to livestock theft. Conflict over access to water source in grazing/mining area between miners and pastoralists.

Achorichor, Amudat

Conflict over land between cultivators and herders and past stories of livestock theft

Loyoro, Kaabong

Conflict over access to water and pasture between resident pastoralists and incoming pastoralists from across the border

Lobanya/Sidok, Kotido/Kaabong

Conflicts over access to protected areas for water and pasture between pastoralists and UWA

Moruajore, Nakapiripirit

Conflict over use of grazing land gazette for conservation between UWA, pastoralists and cultivators

Nabwal, Nakapiripirit/Napak

Conflict over use of grazing land gazetted for conservation between UWA, pastoralists and cultivators

Nyarikidi, Napak/Abim district

Border conflict over access to land between cultivators and herders

Loyoro/Kamion, Kaabong

Conflict over access to water between different groups of herders and herders and pastoralists

Kalilingi/Chamkok, Abim/Kotido

Conflict over access to land for different uses between pastoralist groups and cultivators

Kaileny, Kotido

Conflict over access to water between pastoralists

42

2017 REPORT

MAPPING OF GRAZING AREAS IN KARAMOJA INTEREST GROUP ON GRAZING AREAS

7.3 Case Study: Pastoralist-Wildlife Conflict at Lotisan, Moroto A conflict between Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) and pastoralists that occurred in 2014 at Lotisan in Moroto was chosen as a case study for further analysis. Prior to the incident, Matheniko pastoralists had built kraals and settled around Akwapuwa and Kobebe dams along the river catchment area at Lotisan. Other pastoralist groups including the Turkana, the Bokora and the Jie used to meet in this area and peacefully water their animals at mutually agreed points.

However, the prevailing peace was interrupted when UWA chased pastoralist communities away from the place they had always known to be a grazing area. Thereupon, the affected community appealed to the District Local Government for intervention. The District Security Committee visited the scene and reviewed the security situation before convening a dialogue meeting with help from development partners. The meeting was used to mediate between UWA and affected pastoralists, and to sensitise all conflict partners about wildlife conservation and grazing rights of pastoralists. Eventually, a compromise was reached, with UWA accepting to tolerate grazing of livestock along the fringes of game reserves and pastoralists agreeing to desist from poaching wild animals and cultivating in the game reserve.

The key actors in this conflict, their roles and rules of engagement are displayed in the table below. From the schema and the table, it is evident that UWA and the pastoralists were central to this conflict while the other actors played ancillary roles.

Pastoralist-Wildlife Conflict at Lotisan – Actors and Roles Actors

Roles

Matheniko, Bokora, Jie and Turkana pastoralists

• • • •

UWA

• Ordered pastoralists to leave the grazing area

Grazed livestock peacefully Put up temporary settlements Practiced small scale crop farming Had to leave the grazing area on orders from UWA • Appealed for government intervention in the conflict

The District • Visited the scene and reviewed Security security situation.

Committee • Convened dialogue meetings • Mediated between affected pastoralists and game rangers Sensitized conflict parties on wild life conservation and the rights of pastoralists • Facilitated the achievement of a compromise

Civil Soci- • Provided funding ety Organi- • Took care of logistics • Sponsored radio talk shows zations • Conducted community awareness meetings

Schema showing key actors in the Lotisan Conservation Conflict

2017 REPORT

43

MAPPING OF GRAZING AREAS IN KARAMOJA INTEREST GROUP ON GRAZING AREAS

44

2017 REPORT

MAPPING OF GRAZING AREAS IN KARAMOJA INTEREST GROUP ON GRAZING AREAS

2017 REPORT

45

MAPPING OF GRAZING AREAS IN KARAMOJA INTEREST GROUP ON GRAZING AREAS

8

Water Resources and Livestock Services, Past and Present

T

he maps presented in this section portray the availability of water sources and livestock services in the region, as perceived by participants working on this theme. Even though water resources can be said to be livestock services, they were stated separately because of their vital importance since almost all activities on land entirely depend on water for their success (cf. Mugagga/Nabaasa 2016).

The timeframes chosen for the past and the present maps stretch from 1950-2011 and 1990-2016, respectively.

The maps indicate that water resources and livestock services in Karamoja have undergone a series of changes over time. Livestock services have bourgeoned in number, with new services being introduced and existing services being improved following the progress of technology and innovation. Natural water resources like rivers, ponds, swamps and lakes that used to support livelihoods in the region have largely dried out, degraded or been gazetted for wildlife. The declining natural water sources have been gradually substituted by artificial water resources like dams, valley tanks, ponds and boreholes. Natural water sources still available frequently cannot support the large numbers of livestock and wildlife in the region.

8.1 Past Water Resources and Livestock Services (1950-2011) This map portrays available livestock services and water resources in the period 1950-2011. In the past water resources were scanty and scattered across the region. Most of them were natural water sources, including rivers, swamps and ponds. A number of artificial water resources

46

2017 REPORT

like dams were constructed by the colonial government, while some valley tanks and ponds were constructed by communities or individuals. Due to the limited number and scattered nature of these water resources, pastoralists and herders used to trek long distances in search of water. Important water resources in the past included River Omaniman, River Loteneputh and Nakurobuin in Napak district, River Kanyangareng, River Chosan, River Katabok and Takariamiron Valley tank in Amudat district, River Lopelipel, River Sangar and River Loyoro in Kaabong district, Longor Dam in Kotido district, and Lochagar dam in Nakapiripirit district.

Livestock services were similarly limited both in number and type, and included traditional veterinary doctors, bushes for slaughter houses and village markets. Traditional veterinary doctors used to wander the region at set periods to treat sick animals in exchange for heifers, goats or sheep as payment. They relied on local herbs like Atokarach, Thimere, Abwach, Sangkai or Ekamuka. However, oftentimes, complicated diseases could do not be handled and affected livestock would eventually succumb to the disease. Participants in Kotido recalled that in the 1980s veterinary scouts were hired to treat livestock and cattle crushes were constructed in each sub-county.

Livestock markets during this period were said to be few and distant, the major market in the region being in Kotido. Consequently, many people used to trek outside the region, up to Lango and Teso, to sell or purchase livestock.

Inhabitants of Kaabong were able to access markets also outside of Uganda, in Kenya and present-day South Sudan.

The same applied to inhabitants of Amudat who had ac-

MAPPING OF GRAZING AREAS IN KARAMOJA INTEREST GROUP ON GRAZING AREAS

Map10: Past Water Sources and Livestock Services in Karamoja

Interest Group on Grazing Areas

This is a social map reflecting perspectives generated during participatory community consultations. It has been extracted from the report ‘Mapping of Grazing Areas in Karamoja’ by the Interest Group on Grazing Areas, 2017.

2017 REPORT

47

MAPPING OF GRAZING AREAS IN KARAMOJA INTEREST GROUP ON GRAZING AREAS

Map11: Present Water Sources and Livestock Services in Karamoja

Interest Group on Grazing Areas

48

This is a social map reflecting perspectives generated during participatory community consultations. It has been extracted from the report ‘Mapping of Grazing Areas in Karamoja’ by the Interest Group on Grazing Areas, 2017.

2017 REPORT

MAPPING OF GRAZING AREAS IN KARAMOJA INTEREST GROUP ON GRAZING AREAS

cess to markets across the Kenyan border. In Nakapiripirit, participants mentioned so-called tycoons – individuals that used to move to different places and markets to purchase livestock.

Especially during the time of heightened insecurity, small district and regional markets were isolated and, therefore, not connected to the national markets. As a result, livestock in the region could not fetch premium prices in major markets across the region. So, livestock was still commonly slaughtered in individual homes and consumed locally.

Similarly, milk was used mainly for home consumption due to the absence of milk collection centres.

8.2 Present Water Sources and Livestock Services (1990-2016) This map portrays available water resources and livestock services in the period 1990-2016. This period has seen water resources and livestock services in Karamoja change tremendously in number, type, service providers and rights of access.

Natural water resources like rivers, swamps, and shallow ponds have largely diminished as a result of degradation and the effects of climate change. Those still available are under constant natural and anthropogenic pressures. Artificial water resources, on the other hand, like valley tanks and boreholes have immensely increased in number as compared to the past. More so, the present has witnessed the advent of relatively new types of water resources, including boreholes and water tanks. As a result of the improved availability of water resources, competition for water between wildlife and livestock or between communities has reduced considerably. Access rights as well as rules of engagement around water resources have changed as well.

Presently, there are new actors in decision-making like the UPDF and water user committees, with the rules and institutions of control having been formalised to a significant extent. Important new water sources include Arechek dam in Napak district, Kobebe dam in Moroto district, and Komuriapus dam in Nakapiripirit district.

Similar to water resources, livestock services in the region have also changed in number, type, actors, methods, modes, and tools of delivery. Available services presently include but are not limited to livestock markets, slaughter houses, veterinary drug shops such as that of DOCAHWA in Kaabong and JICAHWA in Kotido, cattle crushes and cattle dips, with some services even being mobile to fit pastoralists’ reality. Traditional veterinarians have gradually been replaced by trained professional veterinary doctors,

while local herbs have been supplanted by drugs like Parvaquone and Buparvaquone under various trade names.

Participants also positively acknowledged vaccination campaigns as well as the presence of health assistants and CAHWs as factors contributing to improved livestock health and disease control. Livestock markets in the region have increased in number and magnitude, as compared to the past. The markets in Kanawat in Kotido, Namalu and Loregae in Nakapiripirit and Naitakwae in Moroto, for instance, attract numerous traders from within and beyond Karamoja every week.

These changes in available water resources and livestock services have been attributed partly to an increase in the number of actors and service providers, including governmental and non-governmental organisation as well as CSOs, and, partly, to the relative peace prevailing in the region since the government’s disarmament exercise.

8.3 Case Study: Komuriapus Dam, Nakapiripirit Participants in Nakapiripirit chose Komuriapus water dam as a case study for further analysis. The dam, also known as Kalomuriapus, was constructed a long time ago by the community with aid of the government. This dam serves a large number of livestock and is reliable even in the dry season.

Schema showing key actors in the control of Komuriapus dam

2017 REPORT

49

MAPPING OF GRAZING AREAS IN KARAMOJA INTEREST GROUP ON GRAZING AREAS

As can be seen from the schema and table, the actors central to the control and management of Komuriapus dam are kraal leaders, the community, water user committees, and herders. Other actors play more periphery roles.

Actor

Roles

Local leaders

• Pass by-laws • Settle disputes arising from the usage of the dam • Sensitize the communities on the usage of the dam • Plan for the improvement of the dam • Advocate for the protection of the dam

DWO

• Routine monitoring and supervision • Train water user committees • Take relevant actions on the improvement of the dam • Implement water policies and by-laws • Lobbying and advocacy • Make recommendations for improvement of water sources

UWA

• Control usage of dam by wild animals • Enforce wild life laws • Ensure no wild animal is killed by herders

Fishermen

• Control fishing practices (avoiding indiscriminative fishing) • Supply communities with fish to keep herders from engaging in poaching • Report unwanted practices in the dam

Komuriapus dam - Actors and Roles Actor

Roles

Herders

• Control animals when watering

Kraal leaders • Advice on the usage of the dam • Resolve conflicts that arise from the usage of the dam • Organise the meetings to discuss on the improvement of the dam • Pass by-laws • Encourage maintenance of the dam by the users e.g. fencing, etc.

Water user committee

• Monitor operation of the dam • Make recommendations for the improvement of the dam • Control the community from abusing the utilization of the dam water

Community • Identify location for Komuriapus members dam • Ensure people agree to work together • Mobilize kraals all over to assemble to the site for the dam to be dug • Monitor the safety of the dam • Ensure disilting of the dams during dry seasons is done • Monitor and supervise the usage of the dam

50

2017 REPORT

9

MAPPING OF GRAZING AREAS IN KARAMOJA INTEREST GROUP ON GRAZING AREAS

Conclusion

P

astoralists in Karamoja grapple with similar problems faced by many pastoralist communities around the globe including climate change, socio-economic change, population increase, conflict and loss of grazing lands to agriculture, mining and protected areas.

The maps and narratives presented in this report indicate that grazing areas and patterns in Karamoja have changed considerably over time. While in the past grazing was practiced extensively on vast stretches of land, participants across the region reported a general reduction in grazing areas, both in size and carrying capacity. As shortage of pasture and water dictate the availability of grazing areas in the dry season, extending farmlands do so in the wet season. At the same time significant amounts of land in the region are presently used for purposes other than grazing such as mining or conservation.

Similarly, the maps indicate that migratory routes and patterns have changed considerably over time. Most migrations are now short-term and often limited by administrative borders, as opposed to the past when long term and long-distance migrations were more common. Migratory patterns have been affected by new settlements and competing land uses along traditional grazing routes, as well as border disputes. At the same time, migratory routes have changed as a result of the increased availability of water resources in the districts.

Indeed, the maps and narratives indicate that the region has witnessed a significant increase in the number and types of livestock services, water resources and the respective service providers such as veterinary drug shops, community animal health workers, valley tanks, and dams. Natural water sources that used to support livelihoods in the region, however, have largely dried out, degraded or been gazetted for conservation.

Changes can also be observed in the nature of conflicts related to grazing areas and pastoralist mobility. In the past conflicts

mainly took the form of cattle raids and violent disputes over access to and control of pasture and water. However, with the completion of the disarmament exercise in Karamoja the security situation in the region greatly improved and cattle-related conflicts have since reduced significantly. Land-related conflicts, on the contrary, are currently on the rise, ranging from herder-cultivator conflicts to border/boundary disputes to conflicts in the context of investment and mineral exploitation and over access to protected areas.

The changes to grazing areas and patterns identified by participants are expected to be long term, with significant impacts on their livelihoods and pastoralism in general. Some of the anticipated implications include loss of grazing lands to new settlement areas and agriculture, large-scale land acquisitions for investment, as well as further gazetting of grazing lands as conservation areas. The increasing unpredictability of seasons is expected to contribute to the escalation of tick borne diseases mostly in the dry season. Furthermore, participants voiced concerns that indigenous knowledge and medicine will get lost as traditional doctors and herbs are gradually replaced by veterinarians and ‘modern’ medicine. At the same time, fears were expressed that conflicts between herders and cultivators could increase even further, as shown by trends already. This will in turn negatively affect both farm and livestock productivity and peaceful coexistence.

On a positive note, participants anticipate a reduction in livestock mortality and an increase in the market value of livestock as a result of improved access to livestock services including veterinary services, cattle crushes, livestock markets and slaughter houses to name but a few. Moreover, participants expected enhanced productivity due to the ability to utilise arable land and water resources peacefully and an increasing diversification of livelihood strategies, including business and trade, agriculture as well as quarrying and mining.

2017 REPORT

51

MAPPING OF GRAZING AREAS IN KARAMOJA INTEREST GROUP ON GRAZING AREAS

References Coalition of European Lobbies for East African Pastoralism (CELEP) (2015): A fact finding mission on pastoralism. http://www. celep.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Reader-Uganda-low-density.pdf (15/09/2017) Cotula, Lorenzo (ed.) (2007): Changes in “Customary” Land Tenure Systems in Africa. International Institute for Environment and Development (iied)/Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). Hertfordshire: Russell Press (?).

Fratkin, Elliot (2001): East African Pastoralism in Transition. Maasai, Boran, and Rendille Cases. In: African Studies Review, 44 (3), 1-25.

Gray, Sandra (2000): A Memory of Loss. Ecological Politics, Local History, and the Evolution of Karimojong Violence. In: Human Organization 59 (4), 401-418.

Karplus, Yuval/Meir, Avinoam (2013): The production of space. A neglected perspective in pastoral research. In: Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 31, 23-42.

Krätli, Saverio (2010): Karamoja with the Rest of the „Rest of Uganda‟. In: Nomadic Peoples 14 (2), 3-23.

Levine, Simon (2010): An Unromantic Look At Pastoralism in Karamoja: How Hard-Hearted Economics Shows that Pastoral Systems Remain the Solution, and Not the Problem. In: Nomadic Peoples 14 (2), 147-153.

Mamdani, Mahmood (1982): Karamoja: Colonial Roots of Famine in North-East Uganda. In: Review of African Political Economy 25, 66-73.

Markakis, John (2004): Pastoralism on the Margin. Minority Rights Group International. http://minorityrights.org/publications/ pastoralism-on-the-margin-november-2004/ (15/09/2017) Mugagga, Frank/Nabaasa, Benon. (2016): The centrality of water resources to the realization of Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). A review of potentials and constraints on the African continent. International Soil and Water Conservation Research 4(3), 215–223.

Nori, Michele et al. (2008): Browsing on fences. Pastoral land rights, livelihoods and adaptation to climate change. International Institute for Environment and Development (iied). http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/12543IIED.pdf (15/09/2017) Rugadya, Margaret et al. (2010): Tenure in Mystery. Status of Land under Wildlife, Forestry and Mining Concessions in Karamoja Region, Uganda. http://www.celep.info/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2011/03/Final-Report-Status-of-Karamoja-Land.pdf (15/09/2017) Stites, Elizabeth et al. (2007): Angering Akuju. Survival and Suffering in Karamoja. Feinstein International Center. http://fic.tufts. edu/publication-item/angering-akuju (15/09/2017) Stites, Elizabeth/Akabwai, Darlington (2010): „We Are Now Reduced to Women‟: Impacts of Forced Disarmament in Karamoja, Uganda. In: Nomadic Peoples 14 (2), 24-43.

52

2017 REPORT

Report of the Mapping of Grazing Areas in Karamoja By the Interest Group on Grazing Areas 2017

Supported by