A small people of Mauritania compelled to change their lifestyle to survive. They once lived in the desert where they hunted wildlife and gathered wild fruits and herbs. Today they raise dromedaries.
Despite being relegated to the margins of society, the Nemadi have never lost their liberty.

To the south of Oualata, one may meet with them at a well as they water their dromedaries. If at first sight there is nothing unusual about the scene, a closer look shows a different sort of people: slender, like all the rest but their clothes are not always blue, unlike all others, and their eyes are sometimes of a clear colour, a unique characteristic. These are the few remaining signs of distinction of the Nemadi. Their history is difficult to trace since almost nobody remembers it.

The anthropological books do not clarify the origins of this people so distinct from the main groups that make up Mauri society.
In Mauritania, Berbers and Arabs are seen as making up a single society, that of the bidan (‘whites’). Their assimilation began in the XVI century when the Arab tribes of the Hassans arrived in Mauritania where they conquered and absorbed the local Berber populations. Many sections of the population from that time onwards became tributaries of the Arabs and the scourge of servile labour, a nuanced term to speak of slavery, took root in society.

The origin of the name
The Nemadi, are one of the non-slave minorities though subject to the payment of tribute, like the Imraguen, a fishing people living along the northern coast. Today, the Nemadi are pastors, devoted to raising dromedaries but, until the recent past, they were hunters of small game and gatherers of wild fruit and herbs. Their name indicates the term ‘nomads’ the etymology of which is the Greek word nomós (‘pasture’).

In the ambit of anthropology, the term is usually attributed to the populations that by pasturing in vast arid territories which they know well and whose sparse, scattered resources of water and grass, they use to their advantage, and move according to various modalities and rhythms, together with their animals.
Today, the tendency is to use the term and concept with reference to all peoples with no fixed abode, dwellers in desert places and used to wandering, even if not for pastoral reasons. This is the case with the Nemadi, also known as the N’Madi, hunters and Arabophones who, until the 1880s, lived in the area of Nema, from which, presumably, they take their name, located to the south of the well-known oasis of Oualata.

A precarious existence
Today, the Nemadi do not possess land and live in rather precarious huts built of straw and pieces of cloth, quite different from the classical khaima of the Mauri (tents woven from goat or camel hair and, today, increasingly made from white cotton). There have been no official censuses by which to obtain up-to-date figures, but it is estimated that they are few in number, amounting to only a few hundred. Among the reasons for the demographic decline and the change in lifestyle is the reduction of the game they used to hunt, especially antelopes, oryxes and addax gazelles. The drastic reduction in the numbers of wild animals was not caused by them but by a combination of factors such as indiscriminate hunting which the Mauris, spread throughout the whole country, practised in past decades using modern arms and motorised means of transport.

The large dama gazelle, for example, was once widespread all over the Sahara but is today greatly reduced in numbers. Desertification, fed by climate change, is irreversibly reducing its habitat also in Mauritania. Its hunting has been banned to protect the species, but the indiscriminate ban has ended up penalising the poorest and most fragile communities such as that of the Nemadi who once used its meat as their main source of food and now find it hard to get enough food to eat. As with all peoples who are used to moving within their surrounding space, the adoption of a sedentary life is the most one can expect from them, and perhaps the rearing of dromedaries is the lesser evil, bearing in mind that this is the most prized animal in the country and ownership of it guarantees a degree of prestige.

Cut off from everyone else
However, the Nemadi live on the margins of society. Considered ‘savages’ by the Mauri, they are relegated to a position outside the pyramid of the social classes (like the Untouchables in India), and even considered inferior to the harratin, the black Sub-Saharans.

It is said that the Nemadi were in the habit of hunting during the hottest part of the day when the prey was tired from the heat. The use of dogs (so valuable that they formed part of the marriage dowry), highly skilled in isolating and immobilising their prey, rendered the Nemadi unique and renowned in the Sub-Saharan areas.
It was perhaps due to the fact that they moved together with their dogs, animals indicated as impure and undesirable in the Arabic-Islamic world, that they became so disliked.
Like all minorities, the Nemadi have suffered discrimination and prejudice. The fact that today, little or nothing is known about them, points out two facts: their dilution within the dominating social fabric and the darkness that seems to have descended upon their civilisation. In their solitude, they have not succeeded in carving out for themselves a space of liberty in the heart of the desert.

Elena Dak/Africa

From Zimbabwe to South Africa and Kenya, Women Rangers are fiercely defending wildlife against poachers.

In their camouflage uniforms and armed with assault rifles, they scour the Phundundu Wildlife area in Zimbabwe, the natural habitat of 11,000 elephants. These are the Akashinga women rangers, a name that means courageous in the Shona language.  As part of the innovative programme that bears their name, sponsored by the International Anti-Poaching Foundation (IAPF) — a non-profit organisation dedicated to combatting poaching worldwide — these ranger women protect animals in danger of extinction. The programme was launched in 2017 by Damien Mander, a former agent of the Australian Special Operations in Iraq and founder of the IAPF. In their first four years of operations, the Akashinga women achieved an unprecedented reduction in elephant poaching estimated to have been around 80 per cent, in the Lower Zambezi Valley, the area of the world with the highest concentration of these gigantic pachyderms.

Black Mambas Anti-Poaching unit. (photo UNEP)

The goal of the IAPF is to hire a thousand ranger women full-time to protect a network of 20 nature reserves. The Akashinga programme now includes six wildlife reserves covering an area of 630,000 acres, almost 255,000 hectares. Currently, 160 full-time women rangers are completing their training in addition to the dozens already in service.
The recruits had to undergo hard training. “After studying the habits of the wildlife and the secrets of the environment – Damien Mander explains – the aspiring scouts have been trained to face the most challenging scenarios through the use of weapons, hand-to-hand combat and exercises in guerrilla action like those that may occur in the context of combatting illegal hunting”.
The Akashinga have also learned the techniques of patrolling and camouflage, the rudiments of first aid, arrest and search techniques, the acquisition of evidence, and crime scene preservation. In the imagination of those who know the history of Zimbabwe, the Akashinga, for their pride and ardour, remind them of Queen Lozikeyi Dlodlo who succeeded her husband King Lobegula in governing the Ndebele people in the late 1800s. She tenaciously opposed, both by diplomacy and military force, the occupation of the country by white colonialists who successively instituted former Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe.

The Black Mambas Anti-Poaching Unit in Balule Reserve, South Africa. (photo UNEP)

In South Africa, in 2013, to combat poaching, the Black Mamba Anti-Poaching Unit was formed; it takes its name from a deadly snake, the black mamba (Dendroaspis polylepis).  Its purpose is to protect species in danger of extinction such as the rhinoceros, the cheetah, and the wild hunting dog. Craig Spencer, head of Balule Game Reserve, a private reserve bordering Kruger National Park says: “When we founded Black Mamba, the original purpose was to defend the rhinos. Often, we had to deal with hunters from the surrounding villages attracted by the huge profits”. The rhino horn is, of course, very much sought after in the Orient as a natural aphrodisiac and a powerful healing medicine. It may be worth as much as $65,000 dollars per kilo.

The work of the women rangers is not only to protect wildlife but also to conduct awareness campaigns. (Photo Brent Stirton)

The work of the women Black Mamba rangers is to patrol and defend the wildlife from poachers over an area of 40,000 acres of savannah inhabited not only by rhinos but also by elephants, gazelles, giraffes and lions. “Each day, we inspect the boundaries of the reserve, check the condition of the fences and examine the health of the animals”, Leitah Michabela, one of the leaders of Black Mamba, tells us.
The work of the women rangers is not only to protect wildlife but also to conduct awareness campaigns. Leitah continues: “We want our children to be able to enjoy this natural treasure. For this reason we also go to the schools to raise awareness of the need to defend nature since this is the only way we can build a future of hope”.
On the vast savannah at the foot of Mount Kilimanjaro, Purity Lakana, 23, walking slowly and peering at the ground, spots the tracks of a lion that recently passed that way. Further on, she sees a group of elephants peacefully grazing. The animals wander freely between the Maasai-owned land outside the park and in the park itself.
Purity is one of a group of eight Maasai women aged from 20 to 28 and known as ‘Team Lioness’ who form part of a team of 76 rangers of the Community Wildlife Rangers (CWR) in the Ogulului-Olalarashi Group Ranch (OOGR) guarding leopards, elephants, giraffes and other wild animals in the area of 147,000 hectares (363,000 acres) surrounding the Amboseli National Park in Kenya. They are the first group of women rangers of the strictly patriarchal Maasai community. “At first, the community thought we would not succeed, believing we are weak”, says Mary Amleset, 24, during a recent foot patrol.
“They considered this to be a work just for men and so they discouraged us … but we told them: ‘No, we will succeed, and we did’”, Amleset proudly adds.

Kenyan wildlife ranger. (Photo Ifaw)

Patrick Papatiti, head of the rangers in the community of the Olgulului-Olalarashi group recalls that the idea of having an all-women group of rangers came to the fore about two years ago when he began to work for the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW).
When the idea was suggested to the Maasai leaders, “they were a bit doubtful” Papatiti recalls. Despite their initial reluctance, each of the eight Maasai clans, after being well informed, sent representatives to be interviewed for the jobs. Two years on, Team Lioness has exceeded all expectations. The women have shown courage and ability, especially in gathering information.
The Coronavirus pandemic has halted the tourist industry in Kenya which provided an income for many Maasai living near the Park. Tourism usually provides almost 10% of the GNP of Kenya, with 2.5 million tourists visiting the country each year.
With no source of income, some members of the community resorted to poaching wild game, Papatiti told us. Today, the rangers are not only up against organised crime but also some of the community who have taken up poaching to survive.

The African continent at the centre of Worldwide Poaching
Africa is the continent most affected by the exploitation of protected species. Poaching represents a many-sided threat to biodiversity, a fundamental condition for human survival. The most sought-after items on the flora and fauna black market are elephant tusk, rhinoceros horn, rosewood, and ant-eater scales. The market for wild flora and fauna is controlled by organised crime. Africa, with its enormous quantity of wildlife, is the continent at the centre of worldwide poaching.

According to the estimates of the World Wildlife Crime Report, 157,000 elephants were killed illegally in Africa between 2010 and 2018, an average of around 17,000 each year. The area most stricken by these crimes is Southern Africa. 75% of the remaining rhinos are concentrated in South Africa alone where 86% of global confiscations by the authorities takes place and where, according to the latest data, in 2019, 600 rhinos were illegally killed. Africa is the continent most in the sights of the poachers and this is easily understood: the combination of the presence in the continent of many species such as elephants and rhinos together with unreliable systems of protection (often corrupt) creates fertile ground for the work of poachers. It has been said that corruption is effectively an accelerator of crimes against nature, gaining a foothold at each level of the chain of command and involving many different actors and not only police agents but also administrative personnel, part of the army and a small percentage of rangers.  Furthermore, we must not underestimate the spiral of crime that ties the poaching activities to some African terrorist groups: it is not unusual for the illegal trade in ivory and rhino horn to be used as a means of financing armed militias and supporting the terror campaigns in some areas of the continent. (Open Photo: 123RF.COM – IFAW)

John Mutesa

The UK and Rwanda have signed an unprecedented deal to transfer asylum seekers to the tiny African country in return for a cash package. NGOs, opposition parties and UN bodies disapprove.
Rwanda’s President Kagame denies that that deal may consist in trading human beings, while Denmark is considering to follow UK’s example.

On the last 14 April, was signed the Rwanda-UK Migration and Economic Development Partnership which could allow the transfer of dozens of thousand refugees to the African country. The deal was made in the context of a more than threefold increase during 2021 of the flux of migrants and refugees into the United Kingdom which amounted to more than 28,000 people having crossed the Channel.
They came from West Africa and the Horn of Africa, from the Middle East and from Afghanistan. According to the UK government, most are just looking for better economic opportunities and are victims of human beings trafficking cartels. Besides, curbing illegal migration and regaining control of UK’s borders was one of the main objectives of the Leave Campaign in the 2016 Brexit referendum. According to a recent opinion poll conducted by Ipsos, 59 percent of the UK citizens consider that their government is not doing enough to stop Channel crossings.

British Home Secretary Priti Patel (L) and Vincent Biruta, the Rwandan foreign minister, sign the immigration deal in Kigali. (Photo (Photo AP)

The UK-Rwanda deal is of the Home Secretary Priti Patel’s Nationality and Borders Bill, approved by the Commons on the 28 April 2022. In a joint address, published ten days earlier, Patel and the Rwandan Foreign Minister Vincent Biruta claim that the initiative which they call an “innovative solution” emerged as a response to the collapse of the global asylum system and will set an international standard.
As a result, it will be no longer possible for asylum seekers to apply for a residence from the UK territory but only outside the country. Furthermore, entering the UK territory without visa will be considered as a criminal offence which can be sanctioned by a four-year prison sentence.  Migrants who arrived in the UK since January 1 will see their asylum claims processed in Rwanda and not in the UK “Those whose claims are accepted will then be supported to build a new and prosperous life in one of the fastest-growing economies, recognised globally for its record on welcoming and integrating migrants” says a UK government statement. Accordingly, the deal will ensure that those in need of protection will be safe and secure in a host country recognised globally for its record on welcoming and integrating migrants. Rwanda already hosts 130,000 refugees, including endangered migrants evacuated from Libya at the request of the UNHCR.
Under the programme, migrants will be entitled to full protection under Rwandan law, equal access to employment, and enrolment in healthcare and social services. Furthermore, the UK will invest £ 120 million to fund opportunities for Rwandan and migrants including qualifications, vocational and skills training, language lessons and higher education.

Abandoned boat on the coast. © Can Stock Photo / Nightman1965

According to Prime Minister Boris Johnson, tens of thousands of people could be resettled to Rwanda in the years ahead. Johnson says the plan is “fully compliant” with the UK’s international obligations, but he expects it to be challenged in courts and admitted that the system would not take effect overnight.
The plan sparked indeed an outcry in the UK. Labour Party Leader, Keir Starmer called it “a desperate announcement by a Prime Minister who just wants to distract from his own law breaking” (of Covid lockdown rules in June 2020). The Archbishop of Canterbury and Church of England’s most senior cleric, Justin Welby said that sending asylum seekers overseas posed “serious ethical questions”. The UK branch of the United Nations Refugee Agency UNHCR considers that such agreements are often “eye-wateringly expensive, often violate international law” [and] “lead to the use of widespread detention”.
Enver Solomon, chief executive of the UK-based charity Refugee Council argues that “sending people seeking asylum to be processed abroad will do absolutely nothing to address the reasons why people take perilous journeys to find safety in the UK”.  According to the US charity Human Rights Watch, there is a contradiction between the UK’s description of Rwanda as a “safe country” and its call to the Rwandan government in 2020 to “model Commonwealth values of democracy, rule of law and respect for human rights”.

A group of refugees arrive at Kigali International Airport after a life-saving evacuation flight to Rwanda from Libya. © UNHCR/Eugene Sibomana

The Joint Council for the Welfare of Migrants, considers that “offshoring” asylum seekers is a “tried-and-failed mode” since “a similar deal made by Israel with Rwanda in 2013 led to refugees being detained, beaten up in prison and ultimately paying smugglers to escape Rwanda”. There is a risk to violate the 1951 Convention on the status of refugees of which the UK is a party, add critics whose list includes some Conservative MPs such as the former PM Theresa May.
In fact, many estimate that the policy’s success will not so much depend on the numbers of asylum seekers relocated to Rwanda but rather on its potential deterrent effect on would-be migrants. Yet, the path to such a program is fraught with obstacles. Indeed, the UK remains bound by international law and is responsible for offering protection to some asylum seekers, such as unaccompanied children, those with family ties in the UK and members of vulnerable groups.
There has been also an opposition from the African Union to the prospects of a similar Danish deal that was discussed in 2021. The Rwandan government has already stated it will not accept relocation of citizens from other East African countries or those with criminal records. The agreement’s flexibility also leaves the UK free to allow “sympathetic” asylum seekers who have not used “safe and legal pathways”- for example Ukrainians – to nevertheless claim asylum in the UK. Human rights groups wonder why Rwanda accepted the deal when Ghana and Kenya rejected similar offers.

Rwanda’s President Paul Kagame.

In Kigali, few citizens dare criticise government policies but Frank Habineza, President of the opposition Democratic Green Party crossed the Rubicon and questioned the legality of the deal. “Conflicts are inevitable. When people come in and you say you are going to give them 120 million pounds and they are going to live a very good life whereas Rwandans they don’t have anything the same way as that, then be sure there will be conflicts”.
President Kagame showed unimpressed by the critics. He told participants to a virtual seminar hosted by the Brown University in the US: “We are not trading humans”, “We are actually helping”. Kagame made a specific mention of a previous decision by Rwanda to welcome Libyan refugees at the request of the UNHCR in 2018 when he was AU chairman, reminding that these refugees “were stuck in Libya trying to cross to Europe. Some had already died trying to cross into the Mediterranean, others were kept in prisons in Libya”.  “We are not involved in buying and selling of people, with the U.K. or anybody”, pursued Kagame.
The UK-Rwanda Agreement may encourage other high-income countries to externalize migration management, deplores the www.migrationpolicy.org website. Beside the UK, Austria has also eyed the option of offloading the responsibility for asylum seekers to third countries. On the 20 April, The Danish government opened talks with Rwanda on a similar plan to transfer asylum seekers, which are in line with a law passed in 2021 which allows refugees arriving on Danish soil to be moved to asylum centres in partner countries. At the time, the move was criticised by the UN and the EU and Denmark which approached Tunisia and Ethiopia failed to find such partner.
The EU Commission said relocating refugees outside the EU is not legal. But Denmark is exempted from some EU rules, including on asylum, due to an opt-out. (Open Photo: Refugees at the Emergency Transit Mechanism in Nyamata, Rwanda. © UNHCR/Will Swanson)

François Misser