Unit 3.6: World Movements and Rangeland Governance

Unit 3.6: World Movements and Rangeland Governance

Instructor: Dr. Hasrat Arjjumend

Under this unit, we will focus on the movements and struggles of pastoralist people around the rangeland grabs and governance. Misgovernance and illegitimate occupation or land use of the rangelands in different parts of the globe have triggered evolution of resistance movements. In many cases, the civil society actors have assisted and supported the marginalized pastoralist communities to defend their land rights and livelihoods.

3.6.1: History of Pastoralist People’s (Struggle) Movements

The history of land and rights struggles of pastoralist people is a complex narrative rooted in the ancient origins of pastoralism itself. Pastoralism, a way of life based on the herding of domesticated animals, developed around 8500–6500 BCE. Emerging in various regions — particularly the Middle East, eastern Africa, Central Asia, and Scandinavia — this lifestyle was an adaptation to areas where agriculture was difficult or impossible due to harsh climates, arid lands, and unpredictable water resources. Pastoralist communities relied on mobility and shared access to natural resources, such as grazing lands and water sources, to sustain themselves and their herds.

Historically, pastoralist societies operated under customary rights, a system of informal land and resource access agreements passed down through generations. This enabled these communities to maintain shared grazing lands, with seasonal migrations that followed predictable patterns tied to environmental cycles and resource availability. Pastoralists often used informal agreements with neighboring communities to ensure mutual access to lands when needed. Their social structures were largely decentralized, relying on collective decision-making and consensus-building processes to manage resources and resolve disputes. Their flexible and communal approach to land use was well-suited to the needs of their lifestyle, allowing them to adapt to environmental changes without the need for fixed boundaries or formal legal rights.

Colonial Disruptions to Pastoralist Land Rights

However, the colonial era brought unprecedented disruptions to these traditional land-use practices. As European powers expanded into Africa, Asia, and other pastoralist regions, they imposed new systems of land ownership based on private property. This fundamentally clashed with the communal approach of pastoralist societies, as colonial governments claimed vast tracts of land for agriculture, conservation, and mining. By drawing fixed borders and implementing property systems that prioritized private ownership, colonial authorities disrupted the mobility and grazing patterns that pastoralist communities relied upon. Additionally, many pastoralists were forcibly displaced or confined to limited areas, which degraded the resources they depended on. In Africa, for instance, colonial governments in Kenya and Tanzania set aside large tracts of land for European settlers or for game reserves, severely restricting access for local pastoralist communities and often criminalizing their presence on lands they had traditionally used.

The arrival of European colonial powers in the 18th and 19th centuries marked a turning point for many pastoralist societies. Colonial administrations introduced private land ownership models, often dividing pastoral lands for agriculture, conservation, and mining. In British-colonized Kenya, large portions of Maasai land were appropriated for European settlers and game reserves, severely limiting the Maasai's access to grazing areas. A 1904 treaty forced the Maasai into “native reserves,” shrinking their traditional lands and making their movement increasingly restricted. In India, British colonial policies significantly affected Raika pastoralists in Rajasthan. Forest land traditionally used by the Raika for grazing was turned into protected forest reserves, cutting off access to these critical resources. As a result, Raika communities faced food shortages for their livestock, leading to impoverishment and destabilization. In both Kenya and India, colonial legal systems criminalized pastoralists’ customary practices, imposing fines or confiscating livestock if pastoralists encroached on “protected” lands, effectively criminalizing their way of life.

National Policies and Post-Colonial Struggles

With the end of colonial rule in the mid-20th century, newly independent nations often continued policies that disadvantaged pastoralists. Many of these countries nationalized lands or enacted policies that further limited pastoralist access to resources. In some cases, governments attempted to settle pastoralist populations to encourage crop farming or “modernize” their livelihoods. Settlement policies often failed, leading to social dislocation and loss of traditional knowledge among pastoralist communities, as they were forced to adapt to agricultural systems unsuited to their cultural practices and knowledge of land management. These policies also contributed to the gradual erosion of pastoralist identity and self-sufficiency, as communities lost both their grazing lands and the socio-economic frameworks that had supported their way of life for centuries.

Following independence, many newly formed states retained the colonial approach to land use, nationalizing lands and emphasizing agriculture and conservation at the expense of pastoralist needs. In Tanzania, the government’s Ujamaa policy in the 1960s aimed to settle pastoralists such as the Maasai into permanent villages to promote agricultural development. This disrupted traditional pastoral cycles, as many pastoralists were confined to land unsuitable for grazing, contributing to food insecurity and resource depletion. In Ethiopia, the Afar and Borana pastoralists faced similar pressures. Government programs prioritized state ownership of pastoral lands, while encouraging commercial agriculture and private enterprises. This left many pastoralists displaced or limited to overgrazed and degraded areas. Settlement schemes designed to “modernize” pastoralists’ lifestyles also disrupted their traditional practices, eroding their cultural identity and knowledge of sustainable land management.

Modern Challenges: Privatization, Climate Change, and Conflict

By the late 20th and early 21st centuries, new challenges emerged for pastoralist communities as their lands became increasingly privatized or appropriated for commercial agriculture. The privatization and fencing of lands in regions such as East Africa and Central Asia further restricted their mobility and limited their access to essential resources like water and grazing routes. Additionally, climate change has had a severe impact on pastoralist communities, as rising temperatures and shifting rainfall patterns contribute to prolonged droughts, desertification, and soil degradation. This has intensified competition for scarce resources, often resulting in conflicts between pastoralists and farming communities or, at times, with government forces.

In Kenya, the establishment of private conservancies and large-scale agricultural projects has displaced many pastoralist groups, further reducing their access to essential resources. Similar challenges face Fulani pastoralists in West Africa, where traditional grazing lands have been encroached upon by agriculture and urbanization, sparking conflicts between pastoralist and farming communities. Climate change has intensified these challenges. In the Sahel, where Fulani and Tuareg pastoralists traditionally migrated across vast territories, more frequent droughts and unpredictable rainfall have made it difficult to sustain livestock. This environmental pressure has also fueled conflict, as pastoralists and farmers compete for shrinking water and grazing resources. The Tuareg, whose traditional territories span the Sahara and Sahel, have struggled with these issues alongside the political pressures from the governments of Mali, Niger, and other neighboring states, which have often restricted their access to traditional migration routes.

International Recognition and Advocacy for Pastoralist Rights

In response to the mounting difficulties faced by pastoralists, a growing global movement has emerged to protect their land rights and recognize their contributions to environmental sustainability. Non-governmental organizations, international bodies such as the United Nations, and advocacy groups have increasingly supported the rights of pastoralists, particularly those from Indigenous communities. They have recognized the important role that pastoralists play in conserving biodiversity, managing rangelands, and promoting sustainable practices in some of the world's most challenging environments. 

In recent decades, there has been a shift toward recognizing pastoralist rights on the global stage. Organizations like the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and various NGOs have advocated for the rights of pastoralists, emphasizing their knowledge in managing rangelands sustainably. Legal reforms in some regions have sought to provide land tenure to pastoralists. For example, Kenya’s 2010 Constitution recognized community land rights, providing a legal basis for Maasai and other pastoralist groups to claim ownership of their ancestral lands.

However, implementation remains uneven. In Ethiopia, the Borana pastoralists have fought for similar recognition, with varying degrees of success. While there have been incremental improvements in recognizing pastoralist rights, many communities still face restrictions or lack proper legal backing to secure their lands.

The United Nations has declared 2026 as the International Year of Rangelands and Pastoralists (IYRP), an initiative that brings global attention to the critical role of rangelands and pastoralists in sustainable land management, biodiversity preservation, and climate resilience. IYRP 2026 seeks to amplify the voices of pastoralist communities who have long managed vast rangelands using sustainable, low-impact practices that align with natural cycles. This year aims to address the historical marginalization of pastoralists, spotlighting their knowledge in managing ecosystems in arid and semi-arid environments, where traditional farming is unsustainable. By promoting legal recognition, secure land tenure, and inclusive policy frameworks, IYRP 2026 represents an opportunity to support pastoralists — such as the Maasai, Sámi, Mongols, Gujjar, Bakarwals, Hutsuls, and Fulani — as they face modern challenges from land privatization, environmental pressures, and socio-political exclusion. IYRP 2026 encourages global collaboration and advocacy to protect the rights of pastoralists and the ecological integrity of rangelands, ensuring that these vital lands continue to support both people and biodiversity in the face of climate change.

Grassroots Movements and Empowerment of Pastoralist Communities

Today, pastoralists have increasingly organized grassroots movements to protect their rights and promote sustainable practices. The World Alliance of Mobile Indigenous Peoples (WAMIP), for example, works with pastoralist communities globally to advocate for secure land tenure and legal protections. In India, the Raika pastoralists have formed associations that lobby for access to forested grazing areas, aiming to reverse restrictive policies and highlight their role in biodiversity conservation.

Similarly, the Maasai in Kenya and Tanzania have engaged in activism to reclaim land taken over by private tourism companies and conservancies. In many parts of Africa, community-led conservation efforts by pastoralists have demonstrated that they can be effective stewards of biodiversity, managing ecosystems without the need for displacement or privatization. These movements reflect a growing recognition of pastoralists’ sustainable practices and their importance in conserving fragile ecosystems in regions facing environmental degradation.

Conclusion

Despite these strides, the struggle for secure land tenure and resource rights continues for many pastoralist communities. In an era of intensified global competition for land and resources, pastoralists face growing pressure from agricultural interests, conservation initiatives, and commercial enterprises seeking to capitalize on mineral and land assets. Grassroots movements and pastoralist associations have formed to advocate for their rights and preserve their way of life. These organizations focus on defending traditional grazing areas, advocating for more equitable land policies, and educating the public and policymakers about the importance of pastoralism. Many pastoralists are also involved in collaborative efforts to improve land management practices, ensuring that their resource use aligns with sustainable development goals.

In summary, the history of land and rights struggles among pastoralist communities highlights the ongoing challenges they face in securing equitable access to resources in a world where land and power dynamics are increasingly skewed toward agriculture, conservation, and commercial development. Pastoralists' resilience and commitment to preserving their traditions amid these challenges underscore the significance of their lifestyle—not only as a cultural heritage but as a model of sustainable land use in fragile ecosystems worldwide.

3.6.2: Case Study of Gujjar Nomadic Pastoralists

The Gujjar nomadic pastoralists in the Himalayas have engaged in a protracted struggle for land rights, access to resources, and preservation of their traditional pastoralist way of life. This movement, especially in the Uttarakhand region of India, has gained visibility through the involvement of grassroots organizations, particularly the Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra (RLEK), and its founder, Avadhesh Kaushal. Their efforts have been instrumental in advocating for the rights of Gujjars within the broader context of social justice, environmental conservation, and legal reforms. This note provides an in-depth look at the challenges Gujjars face, the mechanisms of their struggle, and the pivotal role of RLEK and Kaushal in advancing their cause.

1. Background of the Gujjar Nomadic Pastoralist Lifestyle

The Gujjars are a semi-nomadic, pastoralist community who practice transhumance across the Himalayan region, particularly in Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, and Uttarakhand. They move seasonally, herding livestock, such as buffaloes and goats, between high-altitude summer pastures in the Himalayas and lowland winter grazing grounds. This mobility allows them to manage their herds sustainably, utilizing resources that are sparse but renew naturally over the seasons.

However, in recent decades, Gujjar pastoralists have encountered a range of challenges:

• Encroachment by Development Projects: Infrastructure projects, like roads, tourism facilities, and hydroelectric dams, have significantly encroached upon traditional Gujjar grazing grounds. The development of these projects often proceeds without consultation with local communities, leading to a loss of livelihood and displacement.
• Forest Conservation Policies: Environmental conservation policies have established large tracts of Gujjar pasturelands as protected forests or wildlife sanctuaries. This approach restricts Gujjars’ access to these lands and imposes legal barriers to their seasonal migrations.
• Climate Change: Changing climate conditions, particularly in the fragile ecosystems of the Himalayas, have altered grazing patterns, making traditional pastures less reliable and increasing the scarcity of water sources.

2. Key Issues Driving the Gujjar Struggle Movement

• Demand for Legal Land Rights: Despite their long history in the region, Gujjars lack formal land ownership or customary rights to graze in forests or meadows, leaving them vulnerable to eviction. In Uttarakhand, the movement for land rights gained momentum with the passage of the Forest Rights Act (FRA) in 2006, which aimed to address historical injustices faced by forest-dwelling and indigenous communities. However, the implementation has been slow and inconsistent in the Himalayas.
• Implementation of the Forest Rights Act (FRA): Although the FRA was intended to secure access to land for pastoralist and forest-dwelling communities, many regions in the Himalayas, including Uttarakhand, have seen little progress in enforcing the Act. Gujjar advocates and RLEK have argued that full implementation is essential to protect Gujjars from evictions and ensure they retain access to their traditional grazing lands.
• Access to Social Services: Gujjars face marginalization due to limited access to healthcare, education, and other essential services. Nomadic communities are typically excluded from state welfare programs, and the lack of infrastructure in remote grazing areas further marginalizes them.

Photo courtesy: Bishnu Sarangi (Pixabay)

3. The Role of RLEK and Avadhesh Kaushal in the Gujjar Struggle

RLEK, founded by Avadhesh Kaushal, has played a pioneering role in advocating for the rights of marginalized communities in Uttarakhand, particularly the Gujjars. Kaushal, a human rights advocate and environmentalist, has worked extensively to highlight the intersection between environmental conservation and social justice, emphasizing that sustainable management should not exclude local communities. RLEK’s involvement has been crucial to the Gujjar movement in several ways:

• Legal Advocacy and Landmark Litigation: RLEK has spearheaded litigation to challenge the denial of land rights to Gujjars and to seek the enforcement of the FRA. A landmark case brought by RLEK contested forest department evictions and led to a precedent-setting ruling that recognized the rights of Gujjars to graze in certain forest areas. This litigation established the foundation for future legal protections for nomadic communities.
• Empowerment through Education and Organization: RLEK has organized Gujjars and raised awareness about their rights, encouraging them to apply for land titles under the FRA. The organization has also established education programs for Gujjar children and vocational training for adults, helping them to navigate the legal and bureaucratic processes involved in securing their rights.
• Policy Advocacy and Mobilization: Kaushal and RLEK have engaged in dialogues with policymakers and forest officials to advocate for policy reforms that balance environmental conservation with indigenous rights. This advocacy has brought national and international attention to the challenges faced by Gujjars and created a platform for the community to voice their demands.

4. Major Events and Government Responses

• Protests and Community Mobilization: Over the years, RLEK has mobilized Gujjar communities in Uttarakhand to stage protests, demanding their legal rights and opposing displacement. RLEK has facilitated meetings between Gujjar representatives and government officials, pressing for timely enforcement of the FRA and amendments to existing forest policies that impact grazing lands.
• Court-Ordered Protection of Gujjar Rights: Following litigation efforts by RLEK, courts have issued orders preventing Gujjar evictions from traditional grazing lands, allowing them to continue their seasonal migrations. These legal victories have established important protections, although the enforcement of court orders remains challenging in some areas.
• State-Level Committees for FRA Implementation: In response to continued pressure from RLEK, Avadhesh Kaushal, and other advocacy groups, the Uttarakhand government established committees to address grievances related to the FRA. However, progress has been limited, with many Gujjars reporting difficulties in acquiring land titles due to bureaucratic delays and inconsistent enforcement.

5. Scientific and Ecological Implications of Gujjar Grazing Practices

Research has shown that the Gujjars’ grazing practices contribute to the health of Himalayan ecosystems by promoting vegetation growth, reducing fuel loads, and maintaining grassland diversity. RLEK has argued that the Gujjars’ presence in forests provides ecological benefits and serves as a traditional form of sustainable land management. Studies of Gujjar-managed pastures demonstrate that:

• Traditional grazing reduces overgrowth, which can fuel forest fires, and maintains habitat for wildlife species.
• Gujjar transhumance practices prevent soil erosion and allow for the regeneration of vegetation in rotationally grazed areas.

These findings support the argument that conservation policies should incorporate traditional knowledge and grazing practices rather than exclude pastoralists from protected areas. Kaushal and RLEK have used these scientific insights to reinforce their legal and policy advocacy, challenging the government’s exclusionary conservation policies.

6. Future Directions and Ongoing Challenges

• Strengthening FRA Implementation: The full implementation of the FRA in Uttarakhand remains an ongoing battle. RLEK continues to advocate for expedited processing of land title claims and better communication between forest authorities and Gujjar communities to ensure that their rights are respected.
• Climate Change Adaptation: As climate change alters vegetation patterns, Gujjars face increasing challenges in finding reliable pastures. RLEK has promoted efforts to assist Gujjars in adapting by working with local scientists to monitor pasture health and manage resources more effectively.
• Recognition of Gujjars as Essential Ecosystem Stewards: To secure sustainable outcomes for both Gujjars and Himalayan ecosystems, RLEK argues for policy recognition of pastoralists as ecosystem stewards. By granting Gujjars formal roles in environmental management, conservation strategies can align with traditional practices that contribute to biodiversity.

Photo courtesy: Anil sharma (Pixabay)

7. Conclusion

The struggle of Gujjar nomadic pastoralists in the Himalayas illustrates the complex relationship between environmental policy and indigenous rights. RLEK and Avadhesh Kaushal have been instrumental in advancing this movement, bringing the Gujjars’ plight into public and judicial focus and advocating for policy reform. Their efforts underscore the necessity of an inclusive approach to conservation that recognizes the historical and ecological contributions of indigenous and pastoralist communities. By aligning conservation with human rights, the Gujjar movement offers a model for sustainable, just management of natural resources in the Himalayas and beyond.

3.6.3: Indicative List of Contemporary Movements and Organizations

The following list is an indicative list. We cannot include all the organizations and movements active globally and in countries. 

• Association for the Indigenous Women and Peoples of Chad (AFPAT) - Chad
• CELEP (Coalition of European Lobbies for Eastern Africa Pastoralism) – Global
• Eastern and Southern African Pastoralist Network (ESAPN) – Kenya
• European Shepherds Network (ESN) – Spain
• International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA) - Global
• Kenya Land Alliance (KLA) - Kenya
• League for Pastoral Peoples and Endogenous Livestock Development (LPP) - Global
• Mountain Alliance for Pastoralists and Minority People (MAP) – Carpathian Region
• Pastoralist Indigenous Non-Governmental Organizations Forum (PINGO's Forum) - Tanzania
• Rangelands Partnership - USA
• Sustainable Cashmere Union of Mongolia (SCU) – Mongolia
• World Alliance of Mobile Indigenous Peoples (WAMIP) - Global

In addition to above names, there are many other organizations involved in promoting the rights and livelihoods of pastoralists. A list of such organizations supporting IYRP 2026 is available on the LINK.