Synthesis of Existing Knowledge and Experience on the Provision of ...

Within pastoral areas, it is recognized that l<strong>and</strong> use patterns are changing in line with governmentintentions to diversify pastoral livelihoods by introducing <strong>and</strong> exp<strong>and</strong>ing medium <strong>and</strong> large scaleirrigation schemes <strong>and</strong> promoting agro-pastoralism (Box 1). Yet it is beyond the scope <strong>of</strong> this paperto give a detailed analysis <strong>of</strong> the socio-economic ramifications <strong>of</strong> agricultural expansion <strong>and</strong> resultingBox 1: Promoting irrigated agricultureIn the last 50 years, as per 2003 estimates, nearly 50-60,000 ha <strong>of</strong> key dry season grazing areas have been developedfor irrigated agriculture along the Awash River. In Somali region, the Gode irrigation scheme is in place with27,000 ha earmarked for irrigation expansion. In South Omo in SNNPR, large-scale commercial irrigation schemesare planned which may also result in the loss <strong>of</strong> key grazing l<strong>and</strong>s. Estimates in 2003 indicate that about 1.9 millionhectares have been excised from the rangel<strong>and</strong>s for crop production, (Yemane, 2003) <strong>and</strong> today this figure isundoubtedly higher as irrigation expansion is a continued pursuit in Ethiopia’s pastoral regions.sedentarization. It is acknowledged, however, that the expansion <strong>of</strong> irrigation is a contentious issuein pastoral areas given the central importance <strong>of</strong> l<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> resource access for pastoral livelihoods,with many voices for <strong>and</strong> against it. Several authors argue that regardless <strong>of</strong> the pr<strong>of</strong>its to be hadfrom farming, “the economic losses <strong>and</strong> social costs <strong>of</strong> declining pastoral production <strong>of</strong>ten outweighit” (UN OCHA Pastoralist Communication Initiative, 2007; 8). But to do justice to the topic <strong>of</strong>water use for irrigation in the Ethiopian context, a separate undertaking is recommended tounderst<strong>and</strong> how the expansion <strong>of</strong> irrigated agriculture will enhance or h<strong>and</strong>icap local livelihoods. Italso deserves a detailed economic analysis to determine whether it is more pr<strong>of</strong>itable as well asbeneficial for the state <strong>and</strong> for local people, to develop l<strong>and</strong> for irrigation, to maintain <strong>and</strong> improverangel<strong>and</strong>s for pastoral livestock production, or to explore a combination <strong>of</strong> the two. Despite thefact that this report does not go into detail regarding the implications <strong>of</strong> agricultural expansion inpastoral regions, it is recommended that development in these regions should not be looked at inisolation from development plans for the rest <strong>of</strong> the country, since the lowl<strong>and</strong>s play a considerablerole in government plans to reduce population pressure <strong>and</strong> poverty in the highl<strong>and</strong>s. Furtherstudies exploring the relationship between development in the highl<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong> development in thelowl<strong>and</strong>s, the synergies (or lack there<strong>of</strong>) between the two, <strong>and</strong> the implications for pastoral <strong>and</strong> nonpastorallivelihoods are therefore recommended.Given the limited timeframe for this study, it was not possible to capture the complete range <strong>of</strong>current water development experience. This report therefore presents a selection <strong>of</strong> highlights,based on what practitioners put forward as ‘good’ practice, rather than a comprehensive list <strong>of</strong> allwater development activities in the country’s pastoral regions. Highlighted approaches <strong>and</strong> practiceare project or area specific, <strong>and</strong> are therefore not meant to serve as general blueprints. Rather, theyshould be taken as inspiration for potential ways forward <strong>and</strong> are meant to promote dialogue <strong>and</strong>debate around issues related to water. Furthermore, the author acknowledges that there are otherexamples <strong>of</strong> ‘good’ practice which may not have been captured in this overview, <strong>and</strong> that this doesnot detract from the value <strong>of</strong> other experience which may have been missed in this report.A note on terminologyThe terms ‘capacity building’, ‘participation’ <strong>and</strong> ‘community’, among other terminology, <strong>of</strong>ten appearin reports dealing with development in pastoral rangel<strong>and</strong>s. Yet frequently these terms lackclarification on what exactly is meant by them. Even the term ‘development’ has differentinterpretations. As this report is not based on primary research but rather aggregates <strong>and</strong> analysesthe experience <strong>of</strong> others, it is difficult to present an exact meaning for some terminology unless anexplanation has been provided by the person interviewed or by the literature consulted. Whereclarifications are given, these will be provided. Otherwise, it is acknowledged that a lack <strong>of</strong> st<strong>and</strong>arddefinitions presents some blind-spots in what can be understood under the different policies, plans,strategies, <strong>and</strong> programs highlighted.20