Written replies of Burkina Faso to the questions put to the Parties by
Judge Cançado Trindade at the end of the public sitting
held on 17 October 2012
1. At the end of the public sitting held on 17 October 2012, Judge Cançado Trindade put the
following questions to the Parties:
“First, could the Parties indicate in a map the areas through which nomadic
populations used to move, during the period when they became independent and
today, and to what extent the frontier will affect these populations?
Secondly, what is the radius of the areas of movement of these populations
along the border between the two States concerned (if possible, indicating in a map the
exact parts of the border)?
Thirdly, what villages are susceptible to be affected by the frontier the Parties
are claiming for?”
Burkina Faso’s replies are set out below.
(1) Could Burkina Faso indicate on a map the areas through which nomadic populations
used to move during the period when the Parties became independent?
1
2. Henri Barral, a geographer, who was Director of Research at ORSTOM in the 1960s,
stated in his study entitled “Les populations d’éleveurs et les problèmes pastoraux dans le nord-est
de la Haute Volta (Cercle2de Dori subdivision de l’Oudalan, 1963-1964)” published in Cahiers
de l’ORSTOM in 1967 , that a distinction must be made between
“ pure nomads who practise solely animal husbandry;
nomadic farmers who also migrate over relatively large distances, but grow pearl
millet in the rainy season (wintering);
semi-nomads, who, unlike the above, move over only short distances around a
permanent watering point, near which they have their rainy season fields;
[and] semi-sedentary transhumant peoples, whose older members are sedentary
and grow pearl millet, and whose younger members migrate over large distances
3
with the livestock in the rainy season.”
The author adds that “‘classic’ nomadism . . . is generally characterized by a northwards migration
4
during the rainy season and a progressive return southwards as the drought worsens” .
3. BurkinaFaso is unable to indicate on a map the areas through which the nomadic
populations thus defined used to move during the period when the Parties became independent,
1
Office de la recherche scientifique et technique outre-mer, now succeeded by the IRD, Institut de recherche pour
le développement. Henri Barral has been Director of the IRD.
2See http://horizon.documentation.ird.fr/exl-doc/pleins_textes/pleins_textes….
3Ibid., p. 18.
4Ibid., p. 19. - 2 -
because it has not been able to find any information in the colonial archives and the various studies
it has consulted allowing it to identify those areas. However, it is able to provide information on
the existence of nomadism in the frontier region in the years around the time when the Parties
became independent.
Nomads in the northern sector of the frontier
4. A “vertical” (south-north) nomadic movement was noted in the north of the frontier area
in the 1960s.
5. According to H. Barral’s observations: “[t]he only case of genuine nomadism in Oudalan
is that of the Touareg Warag-Warag Imrad”, who did not enter Niger, but rather went periodically
to the north, crossing the Mali frontier.
6. As regards nomadic farmers, the author states:
“[t]his type of nomadism is represented in Oudalan by certain Touareg tribes such as
the Imrad Kel-Es-Souk and the Imrad Ikoubaraden, and primarily by a great number
of Bella fractions: Iklan Warag-Warag (a fraction of Chief ZAHID AG SINA), Iklan
5
Imrad Kel-Es-Souk (a fraction of ADDIBAZ AG DJIKA), etc.,” .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
“The Imrad Ikoubaraden spend most of the dry season, from December to May,
near the wells of Tin Saman, on the route from Markoye to Kabia.
When the first rains arrive, they head southwards, towards N’Goungam,
Dembam and Tamguissi, on the Niger frontier. At the end of July, they return
northwards, as far as the hamlet of Zémé Tondia, 20 km to the north-east of Markoye,
where they sow a little millet.” 6
“When they have finished their sowing, they then go, during the second half of
the month of July, to Tadambès on the Béli, upstream from Kabia where there is salt
land and where they take their animals for a first salt lick lasting about ten days. In
August, they return to Zémé Tondia to hoe their millet, then set off again towards the
Béli. They spend the months of September and October on the left bank of the Béli
and give their animals7a second ten-day salt lick in the salt lands of In-Fagagan, not far
from In-Tangoum.”
7. The author provides a map of the routes in the body of his article, which is reproduced in
Annex 1.
5
Ibid., p. 19.
6Ibid.
7Ibid., p. 20. - 3 -
Nomads in the “Téra sector”
8. Certain documents in the case file confirm that there were migratory movements and trade
relations in the frontier region in the colonial period, while at the same time indicating that they
were relatively small-scale.
9. The annual political report of the Tillabéry cercle of 1931 recorded the existence of
nomadic populations straddling the boundary drawn in 1 927 and the problems that could pose, not
in terms of delimitation, but as regards the management of those nomadic populations . 8
10. In 1953, Deputy-Administrator Lacroix (Tillabéry cercle) wrote the following about the
“Téra sector”:
“The boundary crosses areas that are both sparsely and unevenly populated.
The southern portion, from Tingou to Tao includes a number of farming villages and
encampments. There are several Bella tents in the furthest part of the southern region,
from Dumafendé to Gourma. On the other hand, the central area, primarily between
the Folko valley and Mount Kirel, is virtually empty.
With the exception of the Tingou-Iga area, where the majority of inhabitants are
sedentary people from the Yagha and the Diagourou, and the Téra ‘Kadey’, the
boundary area is populated primarily by nomads, including Bellas from Ghabiden (Kel
T’Sawet Bogoliten) in the south and Bellas from the Oudalan and Téra in the north.
Fula people, ‘Chéodibé’ from Dor and ‘Gaobé’ from Téra (who are of the same
origin), predominate in the Ouseltan-Folko section, with Rimaïbé having established
the permanent hamlets of Petelkarkalé and Petelkolé, between which the boundary
passes.” 9
11. The nomadic character of some population groups of the “Téra sector” also appears to be
demonstrated by the letter of 13 March 1964 from the Head of the Téra Division to the Minister of
10
the Interior of Niger .
12. A 1952 scientific study also appears to show that nomadism existed in Dori cercle in the
1950s. In his “Essai de classification des Peuls du cercle de Dori”, P. Delmond wrote in 1952 that
the Gaôbe Peuls from the Dori cercle could be:
“considered to be semi-nomadic, some with a tendency to become sedentary — people
from Bidi and Ménégou in Oudalan; from Soffokel and Diatou in Liptako. On the
other hand, others, the Wara Wara Gaobé, are still genuine nomads. Most Gaobé live
in matted straw huts and generally move twice a year . . .” 11
8
CMBF, Ann. 3, pp. 1 and 10.
9MN, Ann., C 79, p. 3.
10MN, Ann. C 97.
11
P. Delmond, Essai de classification des Peuls du cercle de Dori , Lisbon, Ministry for the Colonies, Junta de
Investigaçoes Colonials, 1952, p. 37. - 4 -
13. The same author also noted that the Gaôbe and the Djelgöbé were
“entirely nomadic, [and] represented the prototype of the Peul pastoralist. Along with
the Foulankiabé . . . they were the equivalent in the Gourma pastures of the Bororo on
the left bank of the river. They covered vast distances with their zebu herds and their
extremely rudimentary camp equipment, moving in family groups or at times in
groups of two or three households” . 12
14. However, the same author also stressed that:
“The Peuls from Dori (Yagha and Liptako) are generally sedentary or almost
sedentary village people, settled for at least two centuries, and therefore nearly
indigenous, all of whom are descendants either of the ‘old Peuls’, Torobé and other
peoples, or of the ‘new Peuls’, namely the Férôbé, with whom have been incorporated
a number of vassal groups living within their sphere of influence” . 13
15. Although BurkinaFaso cannot identify precisely the nomadic areas at the time of
independence, it is clear that it is the practice of nomadism in Africa and, more generally, the
movement of pastoralists and their herds as part of transhumance (a phenomenon which goes well
beyond the frontier area in dispute in the case before the Court since it also relates to, amongst
others, the territories of Mali and Benin), which led Niger and Burkina, once they had achieved
independence, to undertake to facilitate the freedom of movement on either side of the frontier.
(2) To what extent will the frontier affect these populations?
16. Generally speaking, it is the decrease in pastoral areas— rather than international
boundaries — that poses problems for nomads. In a 1972 study, Jean Gallais wrote:
“The most immediate problem facing pastoral societies is the decrease in their
grazing lands under pressure from pioneer farmers. The expansion of crops means
that livestock is driven further away from the herders who are already more or less
sedentary. Thus, the herds of the Sankaré Peuls from Ouenkoro (Séno, Mali) no
longer come in the village areas, but move to pastures hundreds of kilometres away
between the Bourgou and the Méma... Similar difficulties have been observed in
Niger, Upper Volta and the entire Niger valley. In the face of colonization by farmers,
the herders have been in a vulnerable situation since French colonization and feel
14
completely helpless.”
17. Furthermore, with regard to Burkina and Niger in particular, whatever the course of their
frontier, it is not likely to affect the nomads or the sedentary populations living in the disputed area
claimed by the two countries.
12Ibid., p. 41.
13Ibid.
14J. Gallais, “Les sociétés pastorales ouest-africaines face au développementCahiers d’études africaines ,
Vol. 12, No. 47, pp. 353-368, p. 363. - 5 -
18. BurkinaFaso and Niger both belong to several regional cooperation and integration
organizations which establish the free movement of persons, goods, services and capital, as well as
the right of residence and establishment. These organizations include:
the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS);
the West African Economic and Monetary Union (WAEMU);
the Permanent Inter-State Committee on Drought Control in the Sahel (CILSS);
the Liptako Gourma Integrated Development Authority (LGA);
the Niger Basin Authority (NBA); and
the Conseil de l’Entente.
The two countries have also developed specific bilateral relations on the same subject.
19. In this context, whatever the course of the frontier between the two countries, it will not
particularly affect the nomads, because the community law governing both countries through their
joint membership of the same regional co-operation and integration organizations accords to
citizens from the community space the above-mentioned freedom and rights.
A. ECOWAS
20. ECOWAS is an African regional organization for cooperation and integration comprising
15 West African States, including Burkina Faso and the Republic of Niger, whose ultimate aim is
the establishment of a common market . The Community was created in 1975; its founding treaty
was revised in Cotonou on 24July1993 in order to make it better able to meet the challenges
facing Member States.
21. With a view to establishing the common market between its members, Article 3 (d) (iii)
of the ECOWAS treaty established the objective of the “removal... of obstacles to the free
movement of persons, goods, service and capital, and to the right of residence and establishment”.
22. In order to further demonstrate their attachment to the free movement of persons and
their determination to make it and its corollary, the right of residence and establishment, the main
driver in ensuring the integration of peoples, the Heads of State and Government of ECOWAS
adopted, in Dakar on 29 May 1979, Protocol A/P.1/5/79 of 29 May 1979 relating to free movement
16
of persons, the right of residence and establishment in the ECOWAS area , which reasserted and
clarified the details of the freedom of movement of persons and the right of residence and
establishment.
23. Three years later, in Cotonou on 29May1982, the Heads of State and Government of
ECOWAS, wishing to give greater meaning and scope to the freedom of movement of persons and
15
See Art. 3.2 (d).
1Available at http://www.comm.ecowas.int/sec/index.php?id=ap010579&lang=en; also reproduced in Ann. 2. - 6 -
their right of residence and establishment in the ECOWAS area, adopt17 ProtocolA/P.3/5/82 of
29 May 1982 relating to the definition of community citizenship .
18
24. There followed a number of other instruments which gave effect to the political will of
ECOWAS political leaders to make freedom of movement and the underlying rights of residence
and establishment a practical reality. These include:
Supplementary ProtocolA/SP.1/7/85, signed in Lomé on 6July1985, on the code of conduct
for the implementation of the Protocol on free movement of persons, the right of residence and
establishment;
Decision A/DEC.2/7/85 of 6July1985 relating to the establishment of ECOWAS travel
certificate for Member States;
Supplementary ProtocolA/SP.1/7/86, signed in Abuja on 1 July 1986, on the second phase
(right of residence) of the Protocol on free movement of persons, the right of residence and
establishment;
Supplementary Protocol A/SP.2/5/90, signed in Banjul on 29 May 1990, on the implementation
of the third phase (right of establishment) of the Protocol on free movement of persons, right of
residence and establishment;
Decision A/DEC.2/5/90, adopted in Banjul on 30 May 1990, establishing a residence card in
ECOWAS Member States;
Decision C/DEC.3/12/92, adopted in Abuja on 5 December 1992, on the introduction of a
harmonized immigration and emigration form in ECOWAS Member States
Adoption of the “ECOWAS Embarkation and Disembarkation Form” used by the airport police
services of the various ECOWAS Member States.
25. These various legal instruments effectively apply in the ECOWAS area. It should also
be pointed out that the travel certificate which is the subject of the above-mentioned
Decision A/DEC.2/7/85 of 6 July 1985 is in fact an ECOWAS passport.
26. Moreover, it should be stressed that nationals of ECOWAS Member States do not need a
visa or a passport to travel from one Member State to another.
27. As regards, more specifically, the issue of nomadism or cross-border transhumance,
which is a particular aspect of the freedom of movement of persons, it should be stressed that
freedom of movement is accorded to this activity, subject to a minimum amount of regulatory
legislation, notably Decision A/DEC.5/10/98 of 31 October 1998 regulating transhumance between
ECOWAS Member States and Regulation C/REG.3/01/03 on the implementation of the regulation
19
of transhumance between ECOWAS Member States .
17
See Ann. 3.
1See http://www.comm.ecowas.int/sec/index.php?id=protocole&lang=en.
1See http://www.gouv.bj/sites/default/files/Decision-A-DEC%205-10-98.pdf and Anns. 4 and 5. - 7 -
28. Those two instruments do not restrict the freedom of transhumance but, in fact, they
organize it. In order to improve transhumance, they establish control rules and conditions for its
exercise, in view of the sensitivity of the activity and issues affecting animal and human health, as
well as the environment and natural resources.
29. One of the main areas of concern is health. The aim is to prevent, as far as possible, the
spread of animal diseases in various countries as a result of transhumance. It should be recalled in
that regard that the first epidemic of rinderpest in Africa at the end of the nineteenth century caused
the death of 10million head of cattle across the continent, resulting in a widespread famine.
During transhumance, the five most feared diseases are foot and mouth disease, contagious bovine
pleuropneumonia, sheep and goat plague, trypanosomiasis and anthrax. The most feared diseases
among humans are brucellosis and tuberculosis.
30. Lastly, it should be stressed that, in order to make the freedom of movement of persons,
goods, services and capital, as well as the right of residence and establishment, a reality within the
ECOWAS space, the Community authorities have recently organized awareness-raising and
outreach seminars and workshops on those rights in Member States. The authorities are convinced
that the obstacles to freedom of movement, residence and establishment are mainly due to a general
lack of awareness of the existence and scope of those rights.
B. WAEMU
31. Established in Dakar on 10 January 1994, the West African Economic and Monetary
Union (WAEMU) is a regional economic and monetary union of eight West African countries.
32. The aims of this organization are set out in Article4 of its founding treaty. Like
ECOWAS, WAEMU has as its particular aim the establishment between Member States of a
common market based on the free movement of persons, goods, services, capital and the right of
establishment of persons pursuing an independent or salaried activity, as well as a common
external tariff and a common trade policy.
33. Articles 91, 92, 93 and 96 of its founding treaty are devoted more explicitly to the right
of residence, the right of establishment, the free provision of services and the free circulation of
capital, respectively.
34. In addition to the provisions of the founding treaty, several texts issued by the
Conference of the Heads of State and Government, the Council of Ministers, the Commission and
the President of the Commission supplement and clarify the meaning and scope of the freedom of
movement and the right of establishment and residence in the WAEMU area . 20
C. The Permanent Inter-State Committee on Drought Control in the Sahel
35. The Permanent Inter-State Committee on Drought Control in the Sahel (CILSS) was
established on 12 September 1973 following the severe droughts which hit the Sahel in the 1970s.
The Committee today comprises nine States: four coastal States (Gambia, Guinea-Bissau,
2See the text of the WAEMU Court of Justice on the free movement of persons and goods in the WAEMU area,
http://www.institut-idef.org/IMG/pdf/CommunicationLibreCirculoPers_Bien…. - 8 -
Mauritania and Senegal), four landlocked States (BurkinaFaso, Chad, Mali and Niger); and one
island State (Cape Verde).
36. A transhumance agreement was concluded between the CILSS Member States in 1991,
and endorsed by ECOWAS, LGA and NBA.
D. The Conseil de l’Entente (regional co-operation forum)
37. Burkina Faso and Niger, along with Côte d’Ivoire, Benin and Togo, are members of the
Conseil de l’Entente , the oldest sub-regional organization in West Africa, which was created in
Abidjan on 29 May 1959 with the support of the colonial power.
38. In paragraph 5 of the preamble to its Charter, which was revised on 5 December 2011 in
Cotonou, the Conseil de l’Entente Heads of State and Heads of Government affirmed their desire to
“develop between people and States, closer and more dynamic political, economic and cultural
integration, notably through strengthening already existing bonds of solidarity, understanding,
fraternity and harmony”.
39. That objective is set out in more detail in Article 2 of the Charter, while Article 3 affirms,
inter alia, as principles essential for achieving the economic and political integration of Conseil de
l’Entente Member States, “the free movement of people and goods, the right of residence and
establishment for nationals of Member States within the Entente area”, “respect, promotion and
protection of human and peoples’ rights . . .”.
40. In 1989, the Conseil de l’Entente Member States signed a Protocol of Agreement
establishing an international transhumance certificate in the Conseil countries and highlighting
transit through the entry and exit points established by the States and the health protection and
security conditions to be met in order to cross borders.
E. The Liptako-Gourma Integrated Development Authority (LGA)
41. Liptako-Gourma is a sub-regional organization which brings together Burkina Faso, Mali
and Niger. It was created by a Protocol of Agreement signed in Ouagadougou on
3 December 1970.
42. Its objective is to promote the harmonious and integrated development in the three
countries’ common frontier area in regard to energy, mining, water, agro-pastoral and fishing
resources. The LGA is currently most active on the ground with community projects in the
agro-pastoral field, that is, agriculture and animal husbandry, in all of its nomadic aspects, within
the Member States, and trans-frontier transhumance.
43. To that end, in July 2002 the LGA carried out a feasibility study for a animal husbandry
development programme in the region, financed by the Islamic Development Bank (IDB). In
implementing the programme, which was officially launched on 25 April 2005 in Gao (Mali) under
the auspices of the Member State Heads of State, the LGA organized a range of activities relating
to the management of trans-frontier transhumance. A workshop on trans-frontier transhumance
was held in November 2007 in Gao. That workshop concluded that it was necessary to produce a
compendium of national and regional legislation with a view to its dissemination. The Member - 9 -
States also assumed various commitments, notably to resolve potential frontier issues through
regular meetings of those involved, including marking trans-frontier corridors.
44. Between 20 and 22October2011 in Ouagadougou, in partnership with ECOWAS,
financial development partners, NGOs and professional agro-pastoral organizations and
associations, the LGA organized a regional workshop on the findings of a study concerning
existing legislation governing transhumance in the organization’s Member States.
45. The purpose of that workshop was also:
to encourage greater consideration of the contribution of pastoralism to economic integration in
the West African sub-region;
to promote the effective application of domestic and Community legislation on pastoralism to
combat obstacles to trans-frontier transhumance;
to encourage LGA Member States and the States of the West African sub-region to do more to
support the implementation of the ECOWAS animal husbandry and pastoralism action plan.
46. The LGA’s members find its work satisfactory and are of the view that they are heading
in the right direction.Map of the Region of Liptako-Gourma - 11 -
F. Bilateral agreements
47. In 1964, Article2 of the Protocol of Agreement concerning delimitation of the frontier
between Burkina Faso and Niger referred specifically to “population movements” and read:
“Provided they are carrying the official identity documents of their State,
nationals (within the meaning of the Nationality Code of the State concerned) of the
Contracting Parties may move freely from one side of the frontier to the other.
All nationals of either of the Contracting Parties may enter the territory of the
other, travel on that territory, establish their residence there in the place of their choice
and leave the territory, without being obliged to obtain a visa or residence permit of
any kind.
However, transhumant nationals of one State travelling to the other State must
have a transhumance certificate stating the composition of their family and the number
of their animals.
The two Contracting Parties shall communicate to each other all documents
concerning transhumance, in particular details of routes followed and movement
calendars . . .”21
48. In January 1968 at a Ministerial meeting held between Niger and Volta, it was decided
that:
“Both parties agree henceforth to dispense with the movement calendar
requirement as that clause is difficult to put into practice. It is understood that the
relevant local administrative uthorities shall communicate to each other all documents
22
concerning transhumance.”
49. Clearly, both parties have continued to co-operate so as to improve and facilitate the
conditions and arrangements for the free movement of people and livestock between their
respective territories. This is evidenced by, for example,
the Report of the meeting between the Minister for Territorial Administration and Security of
Burkina Faso a23 the Minister Delegate for the Interior of the Republic of Niger,
9 April 1986 ;
the Report of the meeting between the Ministers for Territorial Administration and Security of
the Republics of Niger and Burkina Faso held in Kompienga, Kompienga Province, from 5 to
24
6 December 1997 ;
see also the Report of the meeting between the Minister for the Interior of Niger and the
Minister for Territorial Development of Burkina Faso, held in Tenkodogo between, 24 and
26 May 2000 ; 25
21
Ann. MBF 45.
22Ann. MBF 54, point 2.
23Ann. MBF 68: see point II (A), p. 3; and recommendation No. 2, p. 6.
24Ann. MBF 92, p. 2, point I (3), and p. 3, point II.3, and attached press release, p. 2, paras. 3 and 4. - 12 -
in January2003, the Minister for the Interior and Decentralisation of the Republic of Niger
indicated, furthermore, during the work of the Consultative Framework for trans-frontier
transhumance between the Republic of Niger and Burkina Faso that one of the problems
encountered as regards facilitating livestock movement was, in his view “failure to recognise
frontiers” . By establishing definitively the frontier line as described in the Erratum, the Court
will make it possible to eliminate one of the obstacles to the harmonious regulation of
transhumance issues between the two countries.
50. In general, Burkina Faso, recognising the need for regional and sub-regional integration
as a factor in its own development and the development of West Africa, has for almost a decade
been organizing a Communities Day (Journée des Communautés) . The purpose of that day is to
promote better integration of foreign communities living in Burkina Faso, whether they are from
ECOWAS States or come from further afield. The day’s activities are organized by the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs and Regional Co-operation through the National Integration Commission, an
organization reporting to that Ministry. As part of its policy to promote regional integration, in
2007 the Government of Burkina Faso made plo27 of land in a residential area available to the
Niger community living in Burkina Faso .
51. The close co-operation between Burkina Faso and Niger on tourism, notably
management of ParkW and the protected trans-frontier areas, as well as agriculture, water
resources, the environment, animal resources and trans-frontier transhumance, was highlighted at
the meeting of the Decision and Recommendation Monitoring Committee of the Second Session of
the Joint Commission. The Report of that meeting refers to the implementation of community
projects relating to the management of transhumance corridors established by Burkina Faso and
Niger, while paragraphIII.4 of the Report of the Second Session of the Joint Burkina-Niger
Commission notes the existence, since 2003, of a permanent consultation framework between the
two countries concerning transhumance.
52. In light of community law in West Africa, as deriving from the legal provisions of the
instruments establishing the sub-regional organizations which Burkina Faso and Niger have joined,
and as deriving from the regulatory instruments of the organs of those organizations, as well as the
practices followed or observed by the States of the sub-region, Burkina Faso is in a position to
respond that the frontier line between Burkina Faso and Niger will not affect the life or fate of the
nomadic populations living on either side of the border.
(2) Indicate on a map the zones currently frequented
by nomadic populations
53. A study carried out by28iger on animal husbandry (General survey of agriculture and
livestock - RGAC 2005/2007) reads:
“2.3. Nomadic livestock
2Ann. MBF 93, pp. 4-5, para. 4.
2Ann. MBF 95, p. 3.
2See the Report of the Second Session of the Joint Commission for Burkina-Niger Co-operation, held in
Ouagadougou on 13 and 14 March 2007, and the Report of the meeting of the Decision and Recommendation Monitoring
Committee of the Second Session of the Joint Burkina -Niger Commission, held in Niamey on 19 and 20March 2012
(Annex 6).
2Http://harvestchoice.org/sites/default/files/downloads/publications/Niger_2005-07_Vol2.pdf. - 13 -
This system of animal husbandry is used by herders seeking water and pasture.
According to the results of the survey, the nomadic livestock is estimated overall to be
5,657,274head, including which, 1,732,855sheep (35percent), 1,587,231goats
(32 per cent), 910,433 cattle (19 per cent), 1,141,326 camels (9 per cent),
258,891 donkeys (5 per cent) and 26,512 horses (1 per cent). Essentially, nomadism is
practised by herders in three regions: Tahoua, with 35 per cent of nomadic livestock,
followed by Zinder with 29 per cent and Agadez with 21 per cent. Nomadism is rare,
if not non-existent in other regions. The average size of the herd or flock of a nomadic
herder is 120head, but that average size varies between a m29imum of 75head in
Diffa and a maximum of 142 head in Tahoua and Zinder .
2.4. Transhumant livestock
This system of animal husbandry is based on seasonal movement of herds and
flocks when the fields are crop-free. Herders from all regions practise transhumance,
with the exception of those located in the region of Agadez and those located in the
vicinity of Niamey. The survey results relating to transhumance concerned both
herders practising internal transhumance as well as those travelling long distances in
search of better grazing in neighbouring countries (Nigeria, Burkina Faso, Benin,
Chad, Mali, Togo and Cameroon).
2.4.1. Composition and geographical distribution
According to the survey results, transhumant livestock is estimated overall to be
4,987,65head, including 1,721,352 sheep (35 per cent), 1,168,282 goats
(23 per cent), 1,678,873 cows (34 per cent), 1,141,326 camels (4 per cent),
258,891 donkeys (4 per cent) and 26,512 horses (1 per cent).
Transhumance is practised by 54,257herders, each having an average of
92 head of livestock. That average reaches a maximum of 150 head for 14.3 per cent
of herders compared to 15head for 7.2percent of herders. The regions in which
transhumant livestock are concentrated, in order of size, are: Maradi (25.2 per cent of
the total number of transhumant livestock), followed by Tahoua (21.6 per cent), Dosso
(14.8 per cent), 30Zinder (13.6 per cent), Tillabery (12.7 per cent) and Diffa
(12.1 per cent).”
54. A form of nomadism or semi-nomadism is currently practised between the region of
Tillabery (10,000 herders) and Burkina Faso. The report also shows that Burkina Faso is not the
only destination, as evidenced by the fact that the area frequented by nomads goes way beyond the
frontier zone:
“Nigeria is the principal destination of the transhumant livestock, with
79.3percent of livestock involved in trans-frontier transhumance, followed by
Burkina Faso (7.5percent), Benin (4.5percent), Chad (3.8percent) and Mali
(3.6percent). Less than 2percent of livestock in Cameroon and Togo are
transhumant. Nigeria attracts most transhumants in practically all regions of the
country, with the exception of Tillabery.
However, transhumant livestock from the Maradi region is most dominant
(40percent of total transhumant livestock), followed by the region of Tahoua
(22 per cent), Diffa (14 per cent), Zinder (13 per cent) and Dosso (10 per cent).
29
Ibid., p. 34.
30
Ibid., p. 35. - 14 -
Transhumant livestock into Burkina Faso comes mainly from the region of Tillabery
(97.8 per cent of all transhumant livestock in the country).
Transhumant livestock into Benin comes mainly from the region of Dosso
(88.2percent of all transhumant livestock in the country comes from Niger).
90percent of livestock travelling to Chad comes from the region of Diffa, while
livestock travelling to Mali comprises mostly herds originating in Tillabery,
representing 90 per cent of total transhumant livestock in the country from Niger.” 31
55. There is also traffic between Burkina Faso and Niger. The following diagram (see also
Annex7) shows transhumance routes which correspond to the zones currently frequented by
nomads.
3Ibid., p. 36.Transhumance routes between Burkina Faso and Niger - 16 -
3. What is the radius of areas of movement of these populations around the frontier between
the States (please indicate on a map, if possible, the exact parts of the border)?
56. The radius of the areas of movement of nomadic and semi-nomadic populations can be
estimated on the basis of the transhumance routes shown on the above diagram.
57. Transhumance is a traditional herding system based on longstanding routes and
itineraries which are still in use today. The volume of movement varies in terms of both time and
space, depending on the year and more particularly, periods of dr32ght. Since the d33ughts of the
1970s and 1980s, as a result of the eradication of glosinidae and simuliidae and developments in
veterinary science (chemotherapy), livestock movements from Sahelian countries, in this case
Niger and Burkina Faso, increased southwards as far as neighbouring coastal countries: Benin,
Togo and Ghana.
58. Livestock are moved in search of pasture, watering points and salt licks. Those
movements of livestock take no account of national frontiers. Livestock movements are dependent
solely upon nature, natural resources and their capacity to feed their stock. Herders continue to
move their livestock, even in the worst conditions.
59. The resources shared by herders are never appropriated by one community to the
detriment of another. All depend on the rainfall and its vagaries; no one knows in advance when
fodder resource conditions will fail. A system of solidarity, of tontine (mutual assistance) exists,
where each welcomes the other when the conditions are better in his area, in the certainty of being
welcomed in turn in other areas when nature is more favourable there.
60. On the ground, the livestock trails followed by the herders commence in the villages and
link up with national and international routes. Identified livestock trails, officially established and
maintained by States, are located on traditional routes and are used both for the movement and
trading of livestock. For that reason, many start from or pass through the main livestock markets
and embarkation sites for shipment to coastal nations, the traditional customers of Sahelian
countries.
61. In addition to the political, technical and legal measures adopted by States as regards the
movement of livestock, sub-regional organizations (ECOWAS, WAEMU, LGA, CILSS) develop
initiatives with a view to promoting animal husbandry, taking account of livestock mobility . 34
62. It must however be noted that livestock movement is not afforded the same attention in
terms of monitoring as the movement of domestic animals and movement for commercial purposes
(markets, exports). There are scant statistics and the issue can only be examined on the basis of
one-off studies and piecemeal information.
63. Between Burkina Faso and the Republic of Niger, livestock leave, arrive and pass
through frontier administrative districts: the regions of Tillabery, Niamey and Dosso for Niger, the
32
Tsetse flies.
33
Blackfly.
3See supra, paras. 27 et seq. - 17 -
regions of the Sahel and the East for Burkina Faso. The following diagrams show transhumance
routes in West Africa and then, more specifically, between Burkina Faso and Niger.Map 3. Trans_frontier transhumance routes in West and Central AfricaMap 14. Transhumance and Nomadism in NigerMap of transhumance routes - 21 -
64. In terms of numbers, livestock movements between the two countries favour Niger.
Over the last three years, numbers have been estimated at between 24,000cattle and 3,900sheep
and goats, and 21,000cattle and 4,500 small ruminants. These numbers are largely an under-
estimate (low rate of use of official documents by herders). One-off studies often provide a better
picture of the situation. In the 1980s, according to an LGA study, numbers were estimated to be
between 140,000 and 150,000 head of cattle leaving Niger for Burkina Faso.
65. The radius of the area through which nomadic populations move depends on the richness
of the pasture, watering points and salt licks, animal health conditions and commercial facilities
(livestock and animal produce markets). As stated above, Burkina Faso and Niger are at the same
time and reciprocally host and transit zones for livestock moving between the countries. Animals
from Burkina Faso rarely go beyond the River Niger, and Burkina Faso and Niger herders can be
found in the neighbouring coastal countries: Benin, Togo and Ghana. Livestock from Niger
sometimes travels as far afield as Sudan and the countries of Central Africa during years of food
shortages.
4. What villages are susceptible to be affected by the frontier the Parties are claiming for?
This question assumes approaching the matter from a historical and relative perspective (in
the sense that there have been several different lines over the years, involving changes to the
attachment of villages) which is not that adopted by the 1987 Agreement fixing the applicable law
in the present dispute. To the extent that the 1987Agreement confirms that the legal title is the
Erratum of 1927, no village is liable to be “affected by the frontier” since the delimitation has
remained the same between 1927 and today. - 22 -
L IST OFA NNEXES
[The Annexes have not been translated]
Annex 1 Map of the routes of various nomadic and transhumant groups from Oudalan in
H.Barral “Les populations d’éleveurs et les problèmes pastoraux dans le nord-est
de la Haute Volta (Cercle de Dori- Sub-division de l’Oudlan, 1963-1964)”,
Cahiers de l’ORSTOM, 1967, pp. 20-21.
Annex 2 Protocol A/p1/5/79 of 29 May 1979 relating to free movement of persons, the right
of residence and establishment.
Annex 3 Protocol A/p5/5/82 of 29 May 1982 relating to the definition of community
citizenship.
Annex 4 Decision A/DEC.5/10/98 of 31 October 1998 concerning the regulation of
transhumance between ECOWAS Member States.
Annex 5 Regulation C/REG.3/01/03 of 28 January 2003 on the regulating transhumance
between ECOWAS Member States.
Annex 6 Report of the Second Session of the Joint Commission for Burkina-Niger
Co-operation, held in Ouagadougou on 13 and 14 March 2007, and Report of the
meeting of the Decision and Recommendation Monitoring Committee of the
Second Session of the Joint Burkina-Niger Commission, held in Niamey on 19 and
20 March 2012.
Annex 7 Diagrams showing transhumance routes between Burkina Faso and Niger.
___________ Letter to the Registrar dated 15 November 2012
from the Deputy Co-Agent of Niger
[Translation]
Re: Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Niger)
Ref: Letter No. 140951 of 18 October 2012
I have the honour to transmit to you herewith the reply of the Government of Niger to the
questions put to the Parties by Judge Cançado Trindade at the end of the public sitting held on
17 October 2012.
The Court will note that, in order to respond to Judge Cançado Trindade’s questions, the
Government of Niger has been obliged to cite documents not previously produced by either Party,
namely:
the General report on the consultation meeting on cross-border transhumance, held in Dori
(Burkina Faso) on 19 and 20 December 2002;
the Protocol of Agreement establishing a consultation framework between Burkina Faso and
the Republic of Niger, signed at Tillabéry on 26 January 2003;
Decision A/DEC.5/10/98 regulating transhumance between ECOWAS Member States, signed
at Abuja on 31 October 1998.
These three documents, should they be accepted by the Court, could be regarded as Niger
Annexes, Series A, Nos. 25, 26 and 27.
___________ INTRODUCTION
The area that extends from the River Niger to the southern boundaries of Dori is populated
by sedentary (Aribinda, Gorouol, Kokoro, Téra, Dargol), nomadic (Oudalan, Logomaten) and
semi-nomadic (Diagourou, Liptako, Yagha) peoples, as shown by the sketch-map of Dori annexed
to the Annual General Report for 1924 of that cercle (MN, Ann. C 5), reproduced below.
Those population groups are the same today. They are now spread across the following new
administrative divisions: the department of Téra (Gorouol, Téra, Diagourou and Dargol cantons) on
the Niger side; the provinces of Oudalan, Seno (Dori) and Yagha (Sebba), on the Burkina Faso
side (MN, Chap. VI, para. 1).
In view of the methods of production and the overlapping of nomadic and sedentary
populations who live together in the area in dispute, it may be said that this area is not occupied
solely by nomadic populations. What applies to the region as a whole applies a fortiori to the
frontier area.
The issue of nomadic populations was dealt with in ChaptersVI and VII of Niger’s
Memorial. In particular, reference may be made to paragraph 6.7 of the Memorial, which states:
“The Téra/Dori frontier area is entirely Sahelian in nature and inhabited by:
sedentary peoples, living in villages or hamlets and carrying on their agricultural
activities within the boundaries of their own homeland. Human activities are - 2 -
conducted within the framework of administrative territorial units (villages,
cantons);
nomadic peoples, whose territorial movements are constrained only by natural
possibilities of access to pastureland and water and by temporary health and
security conditions (epizootic diseases, wild animals, etc.);
semi-nomadic peoples living in hamlets, whose range of movement is more
limited.
The problems of the frontier area are conditioned by various dominant forms of
production, namely: itinerant nomadism; seasonal trans-frontier pastoral
transhumance, conducted on a pendular basis; semi-nomadism; sedentary field
agriculture; itinerant agriculture; gold prospection and extraction.”
More specifically, the question of the regulation of cross-border transhumance is covered in a
series of documents annexed to Niger’s Memorial:
Letter No.E.275 AP from the Chief Colonial Administrator, Acting Lieutenant-Governor of
Upper Volta, to the Governor of Niger, dated 14 August 1929 (MN, Ann. C 26):
“2. A right for all users in possession of a laissez-passer from Dori or Téra to
follow their traditional routes, free of all taxes, charges or fees, including free access
to customary communal watering places.”
Letter No.2259 A.G.I. from the Lieutenant Governor of Niger to the Lieutenant-Governor of
Upper Volta dated 27 September 1929 (MN, Ann. C 30):
“given that these [the croplands of the parties concerned] may interlock and overlap
the frontier ... In any case, there can be no question of systematically and forcibly
returning natives from one side or the other of the frontier, depriving them of their
annual croplands, and neither should they be prevented from grazing their herds along
their customary routes or watering them at their usual pools. The greatest possible
freedom must be granted to the nomads in this regard; all that matters is that they
should not be allowed to evade their administrative obligations by crossing a
theoretical and artificial frontier at an opportune moment.”
Telegram/letter No.815 from the Commander of Tillabéry cercle to the Commander of Dori
cercle dated 10 October 1929 (certified copy forwarded under cover of letter No.623 of
23 October 1929) (MN, Ann. C 31):
“maintain status quo, namely tolerance zone accepted in 1927 without encroachment
or spoliation”;
Report of delimitation operations between Dori and Tillabéry cercles dated 8December1943
(MN, Ann. C 69):
“It remains understood that these provisions, which resolve in general terms the
issues of land occupancy and of the administrative unit to which the inhabited
localities belong, cannot be a bar to the movement of cattle herds... it would be
difficult to prohibit them on the basis of territorial delimitation”. - 3 -
Question 1— First, could the Parties indicate in a map the areas through which nomadic
populations used to move, during the period when they became independent and today,
and to what extent the frontier will affect these populations?
The Government of Niger has not found any maps that enable it to give an appropriate
answer to the questions put and has had to rely, on the one hand, on documents produced during the
course of proceedings and, on the other, on some new post-independence documents.
The documents produced during the course of proceedings that have been used are as
follows:
Letter No.96 from the Commander of Dori cercle to the Commander of Upper Volta dated
23 April 1929 (MN, Ann. C 21); this letter highlights transhumance movement between Dori
and Téra;
Letter No.367 from the Commander of Dori cercle to the Governor of Upper Volta dated
31July 1929 and previous correspondence (telegram/letter No.244 from Téra Subdivision to
Dori cercle dated 27 July 1929; telegram/letter No. 359 from Dori cercle to Téra Subdivision
dated 29 July 1929; telegram/letter No.364 from Dori cercle to Téra Subdivision dated
30July1929) (MN, Ann. C 23): this correspondence and related annexes highlight the links
between populations and the places where they were established or had pastures:
“A I asked my Séringobé why they want to belong to Téra. ‘For no reason’
they said . . .
B — The report made to me by the Head of Yagha (Dori) about the incursion by
his neighbour from Diagourou (Téra) — is it accurate . . .
C— The Ossolo Pool belongs to Tillabéry: that’s correct but the
representative of Upper Volta who countersigned that award, did he know that, during
the dry season, semi nomads from the neighbouring area, including those from Dori,
stay in the vicinity with their herds?
The latter need the water from a permanent pool, the pastures surrounding
it . . .”
Report No.416 from the Commander of Dori cercle on the difficulties created by the
delimitation established in 1927 between the Colonies of Niger and Upper Volta ( Arrêté of
31August1927) regarding the boundaries between Dori cercle and Tillabéry cercle,
7July1930 (MN, Ann.C38): this report highlights the problem of the distribution of the
nomadic populations between Téra and Dori;
Directory of villages of Téra Subdivision, villages of Kel Tamared, Kel Tinijirt, Logomaten
Assadek, Logomaten Allaban, undated, 1941; this document mentions all the nomadic tribes,
their pasture areas and watering points;
Report of delimitation operations between Dori and Tillabéry cercles, dated 8 December 1943
(MN, Ann. C 69):
“[T]here is traditionally a cross-movement of Yagha and Diagourou herds. At
the start and end of the rainy season, the herds from the central area of the Yagha go to
Taka Pool, in Diagourou, for the salt lick, while, during the same periods, the
Diagourou herds travel to the banks of Yiriga Pool for the same purpose.”; - 4 -
Report from the Head of Téra Subdivision on the census of Diagourou canton, dated
10August1954 (MN, Ann. C 84): the sheets of place names show the historical background
and places of establishment of certain villages and certain tribes.
Reply to the first question put by Judge Cançado Trindade
This reply is divided into three parts:
1 (a) Map showing the areas through which nomadic populations used to move at the time
independence was achieved1 (b) Map showing the areas through which nomadic populations move today
It should be noted that there was little transhumance movement between BurkinaFaso and
Say cercle either during the colonial period or the post-colonial period. That is not surprising - 6 -
because the area of the WPark and its surroundings are protected areas in which grazing was
prohibited during the colonial period and remains so today. Moreover, the presence of wildlife and
tsetse fly made the area unattractive (MN, Chap. VII, 7.6).
1 (c) Indicate to what extent the frontier will affect these populations
Niger understands that, in this question, the word ‘frontier’ refers to the frontier that will be
fixed by the Court in its decision.
The current system of transhumance is as described hereafter. In the absence of a precise
frontier line, movements and access to natural resources on either side of the frontier are
unrestricted under a modus vivendi arrangement between the authorities of the two States, which do
not strictly apply the rules in force concerning the movement of persons and livestock (requirement
for an identity card, laissez-passer, vaccination certificate, etc.,).
Paragraph2 of the Protocol of Agreement of 23June1964 between the Government of the
Republic of Niger and the Government of Upper Volta (MN, Ann. A 1) provided for the following
regulations:
“2. Population movements
Provided they are carrying the official identity documents of their State,
nationals (within the meaning of the Nationality Code of the State concerned) of the
Contracting Parties may move freely from one side of the frontier to the other.
All nationals of either of the Contracting Parties may enter the territory of the
other, travel on that territory, establish their residence there in the place of their choice
and leave the territory, without being obliged to obtain a visa or residence permit of
any kind.
However, transhumant nationals of one State travelling to the other State must
have a transhumance certificate stating the composition of their family and the number
of their animals.
The two Contracting Parties shall communicate to each other all documents
concerning transhumance, in particular details of routes followed and movement
calendars . . .”
As regards the future, the free movement of persons and goods between the two States will
remain safeguarded under the conventions binding the two States within a bilateral framework and
under international agreements establishing freedom of movement and free access to natural
resources between Member States, including:
DecisionA/DEC.5/10/98 of 31October1998 regulating transhumance between ECOWAS
Member States [see Annex A];
General report on the consultation meeting on cross-border transhumance, held in Dori,
Burkina Faso, on 19 and 20 December 2002; the report was prepared following the meeting on
animal transhumance held by ministers responsible for animal husbandry from the Member
States of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) in Ouagadougou,
Burkina Faso, on 9 and 10 October 2002 [see Annex B]. - 7 -
This last report serves:
(1) to justify certain arrows on sketch-map 1 (b) on page 4
“the discussions... have made it possible to identify existing cross-border
transhumance routes using a transhumance map prepared by CEBV in 1987. These
routes are:
Seytenga (Burkina Faso) Bankilaré (Niger)
Sebba (BF) Doungouro (Niger)
Dogona Téra (Niger) […]
Falagountou (BF) Amarssingué […]
Gothèye Téra (Niger) Sebba (BF)
Kantchari(BF) Gothèye (Niger) […]”.
(2) to give an (approximate) idea of the organization of the transhumance system designed on the
basis of international agreements, in particular the following excerpt (p. 5):
“Following the discussions, the two heads of delegation reasserted the political
will of their Governments to combine their efforts to find a lasting solution to the
problems related to transhumance.
In order to achieve this, they have decided on the following steps:
the establishment of a consultation framework on transhumance between the two
States, the main bodies of which will be the Meeting of Ministers and the Joint
Technical Committee;
the development and implementation of an emergency action plan to rescue
livestock in view of the current situation of pastures in the two countries;
the development and implementation of a medium and long-term action plan for
the sustainable management of transhumance between the two countries. This
plan should include the following points:
establishment of a pasture development master plan in each country
introduction of a follow-up mechanism for transhumant herders in the host
countries
establishment of a system to ensure the flow of animal health information
relating to pasture resources and the movement of animals
co-ordination of action to combat animal epidemics
introduction of a system of regular meetings to review progress and to
programme transhumance
to draw up a list of legislative and regulatory texts on transhumance in the two
countries; - 8 -
to prepare an inventory of existing infrastructure: watering points, pasture areas,
livestock tracks, livestock markets and other infrastructure in the two countries”;
the Protocol of Agreement establishing a consultation framework between BurkinaFaso and
the Republic of Niger signed at Tillabéry on 26 January 2003 [see Ann. C];
Articles 1 and 2 of this Agreement state:
“Article 1: A consultation framework on cross-border transhumance shall be
established between Burkina Faso and the Republic of Niger.
Article 2: The purpose of the consultation framework on cross-border
transhumance is to:
manage transhumance between the two States;
ensure the proper implementation of Decision A/DEC.5/10/98 of 31 October 1998
regulating transhumance between ECOWAS Member States;
promote consultation and exchange between the two States with respect to
transhumance and the management of natural resources;
propose all appropriate steps to promote and support the development and
implementation of a regional inter-State transhumance policy.
All of those instruments binding the two Parties thus ensure that nomadic populations who
migrate across the frontier between Niger and BurkinaFaso will be able to continue their current
way of life.
Question 2 “Secondly, what is the radius of the areas of movement of these populations
along the border between the two States concerned (if possible, indicating in a map the
exact parts of the border)?”
The word “border” in this question is understood to refer to the current de facto boundary
between the two States.- 9 - - 10 -
Question 3 Thirdly, what villages are susceptible to be affected by the frontier the Parties
are claiming for?
As the question was put to the two Parties, Niger will confine itself to considering the
question from the perspective of the “Niger” villages.
As regards “villages” and therefore sedentary populations, the phrase “to be affected by the
frontier” that will be determined definitively by the Court can have two meanings.
Firstly, there may be a change in territorial attachment and thus of national status compared
to the current situation. We will therefore first distinguish between the villages that have always
been considered as being part of the Colony, subsequently the State, of Niger, and which Niger
continues to claim on that basis. See the lists below: 1.1 (for the Téra sector) and 1.2 (for the Say
sector).
We will then consider the villages with Niger populations which are located in territory that
Niger implicitly admits, by excluding them from its claim, will no longer be part of the State of
Niger. See the lists below: 2.1 (for the Téra sector) and 2.2 (for the Say sector).Niger villages liable to be affected by the frontier claimed by Burkina Faso
Téra sector: 28 villages - 12 -
Co-ordinates
No. Niger villages affected by the line
claimed by Burkina Faso Latitude North Longitude East
1. Petelkolé 14° 00’ 35.7” 00° 24’ 52.6”
Juxtaposed control post of Petelkolé 14° 00’ 10.4” 00° 24’ 34.4”
End of the Niger section of the 14° 00’ 04.2” 00° 24’ 16.3”
Téra-Dori road at Petelkolé
2. Bambaré 13° 58’ 07.5” 00° 24’ 53.7”
3. Tindiki 13° 57’ 15.4” 00° 26’ 23.6”
4. Ihouchaltane (Ouchaltan) 13° 54’ 41.4” 00° 27’ 34.8”
5. Débéré Bagna or Débéré Siri N’gobé 13° 53’ 39.8” 00° 28’ 13.8”
(Ousalta peul)
6. Imoudakan 1 13° 55’ 15.2” 00° 31’ 48.0”
7. Imoudakan 2 or Kogonyé 13° 53’ 14.3” 00° 31’ 38.0”
8. Dankama
9. Komanti 13° 49’ 11.3” 00° 30’ 52.4”
10. Kamanti (Ouro Toupé) 13° 47’ 29.4” 00° 31’ 00.8”
11. Zongowaétan (Fété Tao) 13° 47’ 25.0” 00° 32’ 50.2
12. Zongowaétan gourmantché 13° 49’ 08.6” 00° 33’ 29.4”
13. Ouro Tambella (Dingui Dingui) 13° 47’ 13.3” 13° 47’ 13.3”
14. Bangaré 13° 46’ 58.7” 00° 37’ 25.9”
15. Lolnango 13° 43’ 50.3” 00° 36’ 49.0”
16. Bourouguita
17. Beina
18. Mamassirou 13° 43’ 21.2” 00° 39’ 17.9”
19. OuroGaobé
20. Yolo
21. Gourel Manma 13° 41’ 05.2” 00° 45’ 23.2”
22. Paté Bolga 13° 42’ 14.5” 00° 46’ 31.7”
23. Sénobellabé 13° 36’ 52.6” 00° 50’ 00.8”
24. Hérou Bouléba 13° 34’ 27.1” 00° 53’ 37.0”
25. Hérou Boularé 13° 36’ 44.6” 00° 54’ 00.8”
26. Tchintchirguel 13° 27’ 09” 01° 01’ 13.8”
27. Nababori 13° 24’ 26.8” 01° 02’ 03.6”
28. Mandaw 13° 20’ 19.2” 01° 08’ 21.4”Niger villages liable to be affected by the frontier claimed by Burkina Faso
Say sector: 19 villages - 14 -
Co-ordinates
No. Niger villages affected by the line
claimed by Burkina Faso Latitude North Longitude East
1. Kankani 12° 39’ 40.8” 01° 35’ 57.8”
2. Nioumpalma 12° 40’ 41.3” 01° 39’ 21.0” E
3. Bounga Bounga 12° 41’ 54.3” 01° 36’ 17.7”
4. Fombon 12° 43’ 00.0” 01° 33’ 35.0”
5. Foltiangou 12° 42’ 05.8” 01° 32’ 06.4”
6. Tabaré 12° 39’ 43.8” 01° 37’ 55.2”
7. Mangou
8. Latti
9. Bandiolo
10. Kerta
11. Danbouti
12. Golongana
13. Dissi
14. KakaoTamboulé
15. Koguel 12° 48’ 01° 09’
16. Hantikouta 12° 48’ 01° 07’
17. Boborgou Saba (Dogona) 13° 03’ 10.2” 01° 01’ 46.2”
18. Déba 13° 03’ 33.9” 01° 02’ 00.8”
19. Béla 13° 03’ 36.5” 00° 58’ 52.8”Niger villages liable to be affected by the frontier claimed by the Republic of Niger
Téra sector: 7 villages - 16 -
Niger villages affected by the line Co-ordinates
No. claimed by Niger
Latitude North Longitude East
1. Bambaré 13° 58’ 07.5” 00° 24’ 53.7”
2. Komanti 13° 49’ 11.3” 00° 30’ 52.4”
3. Kamanti (Ouro Toupé) 13° 47’ 29.4” 00° 31’ 00.8”
4. Zongowaétan (Fété Tao) 13° 47’ 25.0” 00° 32’ 50.2”
5. Zongowaétan gourmantché 13° 49’ 08.6” 00° 33’ 29.4”
6. Ouro Tambella (Dingui Dingui) 13° 47’ 13.3” 13° 47’ 13.3”
7. Gourel Manma 13° 41’ 05.2” 00° 45’ 23.2”Niger villages liable to be affected by the frontier claimed by the Republic of Niger
Say sector: 4 villages - 18 -
Co-ordinates
No. Niger villages affected by the line
claimed by Niger Latitude North Longitude East
1. Mangou
2. Koguel 12° 48’ 01° 09’
3. Hantikouta 12° 48’ 01° 07’
4. Danbouti - 19 -
LIST OF ANNEXES
[The Annexes have not been translated]
A. Decision A/DEC.5/10/98 of 31October1998 regulating transhumance between ECOWAS
Member States;
B. General report on the consultation meeting on cross-border transhumance, held in Dori,
Burkina Faso, on 19 and 20December 2002 following the meeting on animal transhumance
held by ministers responsible for animal husbandry from the Member States of the Economic
Community of West African States (ECOWAS) in Ouagadougou, BurkinaFaso, on 9 and
10 October 2002;
C. Protocol of Agreement establishing a consultation framework between Burkina Faso and the
Republic of Niger, signed at Tillabéry on 26 January 2003.
___________
Replies of Burkina Faso and Niger to the questions put by Judge Cançado Trindade at the end of the public sitting held on 17 October 2012 (translation)