Poverty and development: An Indigenous perspective

Development and poverty remains one of the most contested terms in contemporary social and cultural research, especially with reference to Indigenous communities. Dutta (2015) argues that the term development can be broadly defined as the act or process of bringing about meaningful changes towards achieving growth and progress. Salazar (2009) argues that

development is a problematic term in Indigenous communities because it is associated with neo-liberal policies employed by states and transnational corporations to profit from Indigenous people’s cultural and natural resources. Poverty and development are generally defined in terms of income and consumption. These are constructed cash incomes and food expenditures within a cash based market and economic setting. Such poverty and development parameters do not adequately address the realities of many Indigenous communities. Salazar (2009) argues that for Indigenous peoples worldwide, development continues to be a consistently problematic term because it still brings about connotations of the means by which neo-liberal policies deployed by states and transnational corporations continue to profit from Indigenous cultural and natural resources.

In a study on human rights and poverty of Indigenous peoples, Carino (2009) asserts that any measure of the Indigenous people’s social and economic development must start from Indigenous people’s own definitions and indicators of poverty and wellbeing. Similar sentiments were echoed by Tegegn (2014), whose study on the impact of the dominant environment policies on Indigenous people in Africa concluded that where development pertains to Indigenous peoples, it should be reflective and articulated by Indigenous peoples themselves. Development with culture and identity is a holistic approach that seeks to build on the principles of collective rights, security and self governance of lands, territories and resources, according respect to their traditions and ancestral lands as noted by Tauli-Corpuz (2007).

To Indigenous communities, there are other important non-monetary indicators which include the lack of say in the systems which govern them, the non-recognition of their collective rights as a people, culturally inappropriate education, the insecurity of rights to territories, lands and natural resources, non-respect for identity, discrimination and threats to their cultural and traditional economic rights. Poverty in Indigenous communities is a collective phenomenon with deep historical and structural causes which call for collective measures such as the human rights approach, with a special focus on collective rights. Likewise, Indigenous people’s understanding of development is totally different from the underpinnings of economic globalisation. As noted by Northcott (2012), for most Indigenous communities, communal lands and natural resources have fundamental spiritual, social, cultural, economic and political significance that is integrally linked to both their identity and continued survival.

In the same line of thinking, Salazar (2009: 507) is of the opinion that ‘development can only happen once cultural survival, recognition, and recovery have been achieved’. Thus the denial

of rights to their ancestral lands, cultural rights and natural resources means severe deprivation and hence no development for Indigenous people.

On the concept of poverty and development, many Indigenous communities have their own terms which mean living well. In the Peruvian Andes they call it ‘kawsay’, translated to mean life as a whole as noted by Gonzalez (2015). Lauderdale (2014) notes Indigenous peoples continue to focus upon the mutual obligations and the quality of life their lives and others’

lives, as well as sacred places. Lauderdale (2014:372) distinguishes between Indigenous and modern definitions of living well in the following expression:

There is a big difference between living well and those who believe that living well is to live better than someone else. This later view reflects a competition instead of respect and equality. Yet; ‘living well’ is the exercise of rights; respect; and equality and means a life for everyone.

The above quotation is testimony to the contrast between mainstream and the Indigenous conception of living well. Describing the value of pastoralism to the pastoral communities of Kenya, one pastoralist said ‘what the town is for you, this land is for us. This is our home.

What the bank is for you, our animals are for us, and much more’ (Schrepfer 2014:11). This is testimony to the ingrained value of natural resources by Indigenous peoples. By so doing, it is imperative that their development cannot be detached from their natural environment.

2.8 Poverty alleviation programs in Indigenous communities

Without government support, many Indigenous communities are impoverished and they lack access to basic necessities as noted by Westra (2014). In certain cases, even with some remarkable government support, Indigenous communities remain impoverished, with compromised access to basic services. Amnesty International (2012) notes that Indigenous people living in Canada suffer the same fate despite living in one of the world’s wealthiest countries. Indigenous people in Canada still face widespread impoverishment, inadequate housing, food insecurity, ill-health and unsafe drinking water. Amnesty International (2012) notes that funding for many basic services for Indigenous peoples is often significantly less than what is provided in the mainstream.

Hunt (2010) attributes the impoverishment of Indigenous communities to decades of neglect characterised by underfunding on essential services and infrastructure. Hunt (2010) further argues that to overcome the marginalisation of Indigenous communities, governments at all

levels have to take responsibility for the provision of adequate standards of essential services, adequate provision of infrastructure and investment in human capital. Welfare programs can help ameliorate some of the effects of marginalisation of Indigenous communities, but they will not eradicate their marginalisation or secure their well-being as noted by Butler (2000) and Hau and Wilde (2010). Welfare is a right of every citizen and social well-being is one of the pillars of sustainability as noted by Brack (2010). For those citizens who cannot meet this right, the government has to chip in. Although welfare provision can cause dependence among the recipients as observed in the Australian Aboriginal communities as noted by Malin and Maidment (2003), it remains the government’s responsibility to ensure that all citizens have access to basic commodities. The same sentiments are shared by Pearson (2000) who argues that in the absence of self-reliance among the Aboriginal people, it becomes imperative for the government to provide.

In Australia, after more than four decades of employing the welfare approach in Aboriginal communities, their quality of life remains below the acceptable standards, as noted by Martin (2001). It is now generally accepted that the welfare approach does very little in improving the standards of living for Indigenous peoples. The welfare approach in Aboriginal communities has created third and fourth generations of people dependent upon income assistance through the social security system as noted by Martin (2001). Martin (2001:2) argues that ‘welfare dependency for Aboriginal communities is not a temporary halfway house but a permanent address’. Pearson (2000) seems convinced that welfare dependency has become a pervasive component of contemporary Aboriginal values, a mentality which has poisoned the people’s capacity to assume responsibility for themselves and their fellows.

2.9 Conclusion

This chapter opened by defining the issue of being Indigenous and outlining the struggles which Indigenous people’s movements have gone through until their recognition in the last decade of the 20^th century. This is evidenced by the United Nations (UN) declaring the periods 1993-2003 and 2004-2014 as the First and Second Decades of Indigenous Peoples respectively. Wherever they are found, Indigenous people are marginalised. Their marginalisation is mainly linked to the past and present practices which have relegated Indigenous people to the margins of the economy and society. Most Indigenous people’s marginalisation is linked to land dispossession during and after the colonial era. Economic globalisation has resulted in the loss of lands, resources, bio-cultural diversity and Indigenous

knowledge. The livelihoods of most Indigenous peoples are closely connected to the land and natural resources such that any alteration between their relationship and the natural environment has enormous consequences on their livelihoods. By and large, this chapter concludes that Indigenous people and their communities are marginalised.

Chapter 3

The Indigenous people of Africa and a historical background of the Ju/’hoansi San of Nyae Nyae

3.1 Introduction

This chapter will focus on the Indigenous people of Africa starting with the nomadic pastoralists followed by the hunter- gatherers of Southern Africa. More emphasis will be placed on the San people of Namibia and more specifically the Ju/’hoansi San of Nyae Nyae.

3.2 The Indigenous people of Africa 3.2.1 The nomadic pastoralists of Africa

Nomadic pastoralism is one of the major traditional ways of life and a sustainable livelihood system for some Indigenous communities in Africa. It is a particular way of life where the livelihood system is livestock production. Elsewhere in the world, other pastoral systems exist such as among the Saami of Northern Europe who live traditionally as reindeer herders, and the Mongolian cattle breeders. Millions of people in Sub-Sahara Africa live a pastoral way of life, from the Tuaregs and Fulanis of West Africa, the Afars and Somalis in the Horn of Africa and the Himbas of Namibia. The pastoral community in Africa is huge and it encompasses a wide territory, with pastoralists moving from place to place in search of pastures for their animals. Prior to the colonial era, these communities and many others which are now transformed practised nomadic pastoralism. However, the colonisation era resulted in a partial or total displacement of nomadic pastoralism livelihoods as noted by Tegegn (2010). This was replaced by modernised ways of livestock rearing where some of the land was converted into game reserves and national parks and also as private property for white commercial farmers. Tegegn (2010) in agreement with Catley, Lind and Scoones (2013) and Ogachi (2011), further suggest that like other Indigenous livelihoods, pastoralism was relegated as backward and uncivilised by the colonial powers. Africa’s former colonisers pursued policies of confiscating pastoral land in the name of treaties or outright eviction. In Kenya, the Maasai’s pastoral lands as well as land for hunter-gatherer communities were all taken away. The same way, the Karamojong of Uganda lost their ancestral land to colonialists. This left them with limited land for the nomadic pastoralist livelihoods.

At independence, many Indigenous communities in Africa hoped that their ancestral lands would be given back to them by the new governments. To their disappointment, the new governments just stepped into the feet of the former colonial governments and continued to further confiscate Indigenous people’s ancestral lands in the name of development projects as noted by Tegegn (2010) in agreement with Ogachi (2011). In Ethiopia, the Haile Selassie imperial government’s stance was that pastoralism was not conducive to development and growth so it needed to be transformed into a farming community as observed by Tegegn (2010) in agreement with Catley, Lind and Scoones (2013). The views of the new independent African governments against Indigenous communities and their livelihoods were passed on and institutionalised through the mainstream education system and the mass media and other forms of communication.

In the post-independence dispensation, because of the advocacy and activism put forward by some pro-pastoralist NGOs and donors, the Ethiopian government ‘pretends’ to have accepted pastoralism as a livelihood but its policy remains one of settling pastoralists and converting them into farmers. Tegegn (2010) argues that despite lack of support from the government, the pastoral livelihood system has great potential for capital accumulation, economic growth and social development. This argument is based on the fact that the harsh environment they inhabit holds better prospects than other farming systems, as noted by Kirkoride (2013) and Tegegn (2010). More than cattle herding, pastoralism is a way of life with social organisation and with traditional governance systems nurtured by rich Indigenous knowledge systems. In Ethiopia, the peasant communal farmers are not concerned about safeguarding their environment, but among the Indigenous pastoralists, the environment is seen as crucial to their very existence such that cutting down a tree is a punishable offence where the offender pays a cattle to the traditional leaders. The pastoralists possess a rich bank of Indigenous knowledge systems which helps them to maintain their way of life for centuries.

Similar to other Indigenous communities across the globe, the pastoralists of Africa are also challenged by the wave of modernisation which has threatened their livelihoods for decades.

The modernisation paradigm views pastoralism as a backward, uncivilised, primitive and barbaric livelihood which must be eliminated to pave way for development as observed by Catley et al. (2013). Though the Ethiopian government would want to do away with pastoralism as a way of life, it is constrained by resources required to transform pastoralists into peasant farmers. Tegegn (2010) notes that given the resource constraints faced by the

Ethiopian government, the best alternative is to support pastoralism and assist its communities in their pastoral activities because it is a good source of capital and wealth accumulation that can boost rural development and industrialisation. With the high level of food insecurity in Ethiopia, pastoralism is essential for sustaining the livelihood of pastoral communities and in fighting poverty and destitution. For pastoralism to achieve the best possible results in Ethiopia there is need for the government to put in place policies in support of pastoral activities. This can be done through promoting domestic and international trade with pastoral communities and through improving access to markets. In an already ethnically volatile country like Ethiopia, failure to secure land use rights between pastoral and non-pastoral communities can lead to insecurity and conflict as highlighted by Tegegn (2010) and Catley et al. (2013).

It has been scientifically proven that mobile livestock produced by pastoralists produces much healthier output in the form of milk and meat than that produced by less mobile ranch cattle (Tegegn 2010). Tegegn (2010) further observes that pastoral livestock are able to feed on a diet that is substantially richer than the average nutritional value of the range they live on.

They can thus attain a much better level of nutrition than livestock feeding off natural pastures that remain in one place. This pastoral livestock is more productive than sedentary animals living under the same conditions. Despite the potential that pastoralism has for the Ethiopian economy, Catley et al. (2013) argue that the government has not been supportive of the pastoral community because the dominant discourse on development has not recognised traditional livelihoods as something worthy investing on, in actual fact plans are underway to displace pastoralists with more commercially oriented investments. This has resulted in the further marginalisation of the pastoral communities after centuries of systematic marginalisation by the former colonial governments and the continuation by post independent governments.

Like other Indigenous communities, the pastoral communities in Ethiopia are under pressure to assimilate into the mainstream by post-independent governments and social institutions and enterprises, such as the need to develop game parks or other commercial projects which are seen as more beneficial to the economy as opposed to contributions made by pastoralism.

Such activities are usually foreign to the pastoralist communities and they bring them no tangible benefits but they result in the loss of their pastoral livelihoods and hence their subsequent impoverishment and marginalisation. Tegegn (2010) argues that pastoralists are

not against the change but they are against the imposition of such changes on their communities without proper consultation.

A study by Kipuri and Sorensen (2010) on poverty, pastoralism and policy in Ngorongoro in Tanzania notes that although the economy was relying on pastoralists and agro-pastoralists for most of its meat and milk, such livelihoods have come under intense pressure and they have become impoverished. The study notes that there are four main factors which have resulted in threatening the Masaai’s pastoral livelihoods opportunities and making them more vulnerable to poverty. The factors were found to be diseases; recurrence of droughts; unstable commodity prices and lack of support in terms of policies, which further marginalises pastoralists. A similar study by Schrepfer (2014) highlighted the same sentiments about pastoralism in Kenya.

The government of Tanzania in collaboration with the government of Denmark launched a project called Ereto Ngorongoro Pastoralist Project (Ereto I) in 1998. The project was necessitated by the rising levels of poverty among pastoralist communities in the Ngorongoro Conversation Area. The success achieved from this project shows that it is possible and very important to promote sustainable livelihoods as a way of tackling poverty among pastoralist communities. This was achieved through participatory development approaches; working with pastoral communities on their own development issues and offering support for their strategies. The project was launched in the midst of mistrust because of unfulfilled promises and lack of understanding between the development partners and the local Masaai pastoralists.

The project was named Ereto which means mutual assistance in the local language, which signalled commitment to the project between involved parties. The project’s main aim was to empower communities through actively taking part in decision making and the implementation and monitoring of their pastoral activities such as restocking for destitute families, water and pasture development and veterinary services. The implementation of the Ereto project was done in collaboration with the Masaai’s Indigenous knowledge systems such as the ‘ewoloto’, which is a clan based social institution that provides a safety net to prevent clan members from falling below the poverty line by transferring young livestock to poorer households for poverty alleviation, as noted by Kipuri and Sorensen (2010). After a five year period, some 3400 poor and destitute households mainly female headed, had been restocked with a total of around 30 600 livestock units through ewoloto, in order to reintegrate them into society and provide them with seed stock for a viable livelihood. The project facilitated the delivery of professional veterinary services and it got herders used to using

private veterinary teams to deal with the most common diseases and problems affecting their livestock.

The Masaai pastoralists in Tanzania, like any other Indigenous communities, endured discrimination at the hands of dominant groups. However, the implementation of the project resulted in a new appreciation of the dynamics of tropical rangeland management. Contrary to the dominant beliefs about pastoralism, the project revealed that Indigenous pastoralism was more productive on rangelands as compared to exotic ranching systems. One of the factors which resulted in the success of the project was the building of the customary poverty alleviation mechanisms. The Ereto project also succeeded because of community involvement in developing water supplies which increased social responsibility and improved livelihoods.

The implementation of this project resulted from a shift from mere participation to community self-mobilisation. This resulted in positive effects on the community’s ability to mobilise for other projects. The community’s level of trust and responsibility was enhanced because of the Ereto project. Kipuri and Sorensen (2010) note that the involvement of all users including women in the Ereto project was important because it reduced the possibility of external influences on the project. The involvement of women and training them was found to be very important because the lack of education was limiting the participation of women pastoralists

The implementation of this project resulted from a shift from mere participation to community self-mobilisation. This resulted in positive effects on the community’s ability to mobilise for other projects. The community’s level of trust and responsibility was enhanced because of the Ereto project. Kipuri and Sorensen (2010) note that the involvement of all users including women in the Ereto project was important because it reduced the possibility of external influences on the project. The involvement of women and training them was found to be very important because the lack of education was limiting the participation of women pastoralists