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

Dohrn, 2006). Spatially variable rainfall means that the location <strong>of</strong> rainy season <strong>and</strong> dry seasonpastures may vary from year to year (Hell<strong>and</strong>, 1980: 60). To accommodate for this variability, accessfrom rain poor to rain rich territories is either allowed or negotiated (if the visiting herders areunrelated) between neighbouring groups. This type <strong>of</strong> arrangement helps pastoralists deal withclimatic variability, <strong>and</strong> reciprocity – a key feature <strong>of</strong> pastoral systems – is expected when the tablesare turned (Beyene <strong>and</strong> Korf, 2008). Therefore movement between territories is based onnegotiation <strong>and</strong> reciprocity, <strong>and</strong> traditional institutions are in place to represent different clans orgroups in decision-making regarding access to l<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> water (Thébault, 1995 in Gomes, 2006).Communal tenure cannot therefore be equated with ‘free’ or ‘open’ access regimes which lackownership or management plans (Lane, 1996 in Gomes, 2006). In turn, the tragedy <strong>of</strong> the commonstheory expounded by Hardin in the late 1960s, which argues that in such a situation <strong>of</strong> ‘open access’individual herders maximize short term gain through the indiscriminate use <strong>of</strong> pastures to increasetheir herd size, eventually leading to overgrazing <strong>and</strong> depleted pasture (Hardin, 1968), does notreflect reality in the rangel<strong>and</strong>s. However, tragedy <strong>of</strong> the commons thinking has greatly influencedapproaches in the early years <strong>of</strong> development in Ethiopia’s lowl<strong>and</strong>s, <strong>and</strong> unfortunately continues todo so even though the validity <strong>of</strong> the theory has been repeatedly challenged.The pastoralist livelihood strategy is still considered a highly rational <strong>and</strong> flexible l<strong>and</strong> use for much<strong>of</strong> the arid lowl<strong>and</strong>s, as attested to by the persistence <strong>and</strong> performance <strong>of</strong> the livelihood in thissetting (where mobility is still practiced relatively unimpeded). Devereux (2006) found that wheremobility is unhindered, pastoral households are more economically <strong>and</strong> food secure than theirsettled counterparts. In Ethiopia, it was found that livestock are more at risk <strong>of</strong> succumbing todrought in areas where pastoralists are settled into a semi-sedentary lifestyle. In 2004 <strong>and</strong> 2006many pastoral settlements were partially or entirely ab<strong>and</strong>oned, as people moved to evade thedrought (Devereux, 2006). Little et al (2008) reached a similar conclusion, showing that householdswere less likely to lose their livestock assets <strong>and</strong> become food insecure if they remained mobile.However, certain realities in parts <strong>of</strong> the rangel<strong>and</strong>s cannot be ignored, including the fact thatpopulation is increasing, that people require diverse livelihood opportunities which may lie outsidepastoral production, <strong>and</strong> that highl<strong>and</strong> populations are being resettled to the lowl<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong> willrequire livelihood options more than likely based on agricultural production. The multiple needs <strong>and</strong>priorities in the rangel<strong>and</strong>s must therefore be acknowledged, <strong>and</strong> all options fully <strong>and</strong> fairly explored(importantly including pastoral production 12 ) to enhance national economic growth withoutcompromising sustainable livelihoods.2.2 Challenges facing the rangel<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong> pastoral livelihoodsDespite the positive contributions <strong>of</strong> pastoralism to livelihoods, the economy <strong>and</strong> to rangel<strong>and</strong>health, there are persistent challenges. These include the continued degradation <strong>of</strong> the rangel<strong>and</strong>s,the shrinkage <strong>of</strong> l<strong>and</strong> available for grazing, <strong>and</strong> reduced opportunities for mobility. These challengeshave clear implications for pastoral production <strong>and</strong> for livelihoods. The stubborn encroachment <strong>of</strong>Prosopis juliflora, the continued excision <strong>of</strong> key grazing areas for irrigation expansion (see Box 1) <strong>and</strong>other uses such as national parks <strong>and</strong> crop cultivation (the latter by some pastoralists, as well asimmigrants <strong>and</strong> refugees), the proliferation <strong>of</strong> pasture enclosures for private use, increasedsedentarization <strong>and</strong> the proliferation <strong>of</strong> water points which promote settlement, <strong>and</strong> poor rangel<strong>and</strong>management all contribute to the persistence <strong>of</strong> these problems. Increasing population, poverty,conflict, frequent drought, <strong>and</strong> policies which promote sedentarization exacerbate the challenges.These conditions have been associated with decreased per capita holdings <strong>of</strong> livestock, <strong>and</strong> anincreased trend towards agro-pastoralism among Ethiopia’s pastoral communities (Yemane, 2003).Furthermore, the numbers <strong>of</strong> pastoral dropouts – those who have lost their livestock assets <strong>and</strong> do12 For example, the Oromia regional government’s prominent Oromia Growth Corridors Plan has declaredthat a large portion <strong>of</strong> pastoral l<strong>and</strong> in Oromia should be maintained as rangel<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> should not be convertedfor agriculture.25