The remaining chapters of the report concentrate on what we see as a “legal-scape”, or namely the articulate body of existing legislation, including legal principles, instruments, and practices available for developing alternative border legislation about transboundary mobility. Chapters 3, 4, and 5 aim to show that another “legal-scape” is possible. In so doing, the chapters seed everywhere, in boxes or woven in the text, successful examples and case studies from different parts of the world, which anchor legal principles to existing experiences.
Chapter 3 introduces legal principles which the authors consider critical to understand pastoral governance, such as “bundle of rights”, the “commons”, and “customary law”, given the particularities of pastoral societies made of complex and flexible interactions among people, animals, and various socio-economic environments. Chapter 4 reviews existing legal arrangements, at international, regional, national, and local levels, which can be taken as inspiration for those actors involved in changing restrictive legislation for pastoralists—showing the historical evolution towards a progressive acceptance of pastoral mobility as a legitimate and desirable form of land use. At the same time, the report warns against gaps, overlaps, and conflicts in legal provisions. It henceforth emphasises the importance of a thorough review of the context-specific “legal-scape” across various sectors related to pastoralism: forests, land use, livestock, agriculture, water, decentralisation, biodiversity, protected areas, and the like. Chapter 5 goes then into explaining different types of legal arrangements which could be adopted (bilateral treaties, regional mechanisms, national legislation, local arrangements by civil societies) and summarises their content: definition of norms, rights, requirements, certificates, permits, etc.
Though problematics emerge with the examples of alternative legislations, the report primarily focuses on the “good” aspects, intentions, and features—it wants to build momentum for a legal revolution. Nonetheless, as the authors say, this is just a starting point. Indeed, when reading this report, an immediate question arises: why things do not change?