Opinion Essays
Displaced by Development: The Case of
the Orma of Kenya
Monica Moore
Some lorries full of soldiers were brought to clear us from the
area. They came very early in the morning and brought the men together
and beat us up to evict us forcefully...because our community is not educated
and there is nobody to lead us to the necessary offices…because we
all fear the government we did not ask for any compensation and of course
none of us knew that we were entitled to any compensation.
–Orma
pastoralist
According to Francis Deng, Representative of the UN Secretary General
on Internally Displaced Persons, half of the 20-25 million internally displaced
people on earth are migrating within the African continent. While most
of this migration is due to war, many are members of rural communities
forced to relocate due to land acquisition for development projects. Michael
Cernea, a development specialist, notes that since the 1990s, 10 million
people per year worldwide have been displaced by development projects,
such as hydroelectric dams, mining, and the expansion or creation of wildlife
parks. The World Bank, governments, and multinational corporations often
turn a blind eye on involuntary displacement, citing the supposed long-term
economic benefits of electricity, resource extraction, and tourism. Historically,
however, development projects which involuntarily displace people often
result in extreme poverty, urbanization, and conflict. Displacement predominately
affects those who are politically, economically, and geographically marginalized.
In Africa, this process affects nomadic groups disproportionately.
The Orma pastoralists of Kenya, for example, were forced to migrate from
their ancestral lands in the Tana River Valley area in northeast Kenya
in the early 1980s for the expansion of the Tsavo East National Park, a
wildlife preserve. Tsavo National Park is the largest national park in
Kenya and is therefore crucial to Kenya’s safari tourism industry.
The Orma were not consulted about the expansion of Tsavo, nor were they
invited to participate in a dialogue about ways in which to co-manage this
endeavor. Due to the institutional marginalization of pastoralists in eastern
Africa, the Orma are without the political power to express their grievances
in Kenya’s courts. They have been relocated, often at gunpoint, to
settlement camps where they are not allowed to migrate with the small numbers
of livestock which survived the move. Missionaries provide the only source
of humanitarian aid to the Orma, in the form of food stipends and agricultural
education. According to oral testimonies collected by the Orma (who traditionally
practice Islam), missionary workers have, in some cases, denied food stipends
to Orma who have refused to convert to Christianity.[1] Additionally, farming
is against the Orma worldview. Unlike pastoralists from other regions within
Africa—such as the Fulani in the Sahel and the Hawaweer of Northern
Sudan—the Orma historically are obligative pastoralists who have
never cultivated the land. Cultivation is also associated with groups who
practice Christianity, which further complicates the Orma’s acceptance
of this livelihood.
Settling the Orma onto arid land in the northern regions of Kenya and
expecting them to cultivate this land has resulted in tension between the
Orma and the host community over water rights. Since the Orma cannot migrate
away from drought, which is prevalent in the north, they must share water
with the local agrarian communities who hold irrigation rights. Limited
water supplies and two decades of intermittent drought have reduced the
capacity of the land in the settlements to produce food. As a result, the
Orma and the host population have endured hunger and extreme poverty. Food
security dilemmas and the lack of alternative subsistence options, like
diary farming and livestock trading, have led the Orma, especially the
women, to sell charcoal in local markets. The production of charcoal is
not only contributing to deforestation and the expansion of more arid ecologies
in the north. The Orma consider it to be the most shameful livelihood,
since it is a sign of total destitution. As a result of the competition
over water and other scarce resources such as firewood used for making
charcoal, conflict is on the rise.
One of the main points identified by pastoralists at the Workshop on Social
and Economic Marginalization, which was sponsored by the NGO Minority Rights
International and the Kenya Pastoral Forum in 1998, was a “lack of
security in Kenya,” a reflection of the competition for resources
among internally displaced pastoralists, local agrarian communities, and
refugees from neighboring states.[2] Policy suggestions from this report
include political representation for pastoralists in the Kenyan parliament.
Political representation would afford pastoralists a public forum to rally
local, regional, and international support for their rights. Political
representation might also enable pastoralists to demand dialogue regarding
displacement and award them compensation in the form of land, migration
rights, or a more sustainable relocation strategy.
Anthropologist James C. Scott notes that:
Nomads and pastoralists, hunter-gatherers, Gypsies, vagrants, homeless
people, itinerants, runaway slaves, and serfs have always been a thorn
in the side of states. Efforts to permanently settle these mobile peoples
(sedentarization) seemed to be a perennial state project – perennial,
in part, because it so seldom succeeded.[3]
Perhaps the underlying motive of involuntary displacement by development
is to “modernize” and control marginalized groups residing
in remote geographical regions. In this scenario, and certainly in the
case of the Orma, development is a tool for civilizing people who are part
of an ancient system of humanity—a system that modernity and its
proponents ardently oppose.
While some communities are willing to participate in development schemes
which involve relocation, and the shift to what some consider to be a more
modern livelihood such as the community involved in the Lesotho Highlands
Water Project, the common response is in opposition to such change. Dialogue
clearly is not the preferred procedure of state and non-state actors when
expensive projects are designed and supported by international lending
institutions or foreign direct investment.
There are exceptions, however. One successful co-management model was
created by the Shimshal Nature Trust in northern Pakistan. The Shimshali
propose a management plan allowing them to retain access to seasonal pastures
and cultural lands are now encompassed within the geopolitical boundaries
of the park. A recent study on the Shimshali model found that endangered
wildlife was more plentiful in Shimshali pastures than in the areas currently
under the Khunjerab National Park management. The Shimshal cite this finding
as proof of their adept stewardship of the fragile ecosystem in which they
have lived for over 400 years. The Shimshal is a powerful, indigenous initiative
which clearly defines the methods by which they are willing to incorporate
the state’s concept of “development” into their pre-state
livelihood. The challenge for development, and state and non-state actors,
is the acceptance, implementation, and respect for these innovative initiatives.
For groups such as the Orma, the challenge is to provide access to information
about indigenous initiatives, to support communication and education between
marginalized groups, and to offer sustainable support for local solutions
so that vulnerable communities can define their present and future amidst
the push for modernity.
[1] See Panos Eastern Africa at: http://www.panoseasternafrica.org.ug/about_us.htm and Panos London at: http://www.panos.org.uk/global/projectdetails.asp?ProjectID=1010&ID=1004
[2] See Pastoralists in the Horn of Africa: A Report
from a Workshop on Social and Economic Marginalization held on December 8-10, 1998 in Nairobi,
Kenya: http://www.minorityrights.org/Admin/Download/pdf/pastoralistsWR.pdf
[3] James Scott, Seeing Like a State: How Certain
Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed.” New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1998.
© 2002-2003,
Center On Rights Development |
