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

observed response was for individuals to seek new ways <strong>of</strong> ensuring access to rangel<strong>and</strong>s, whichincluded the creation <strong>of</strong> private reserves for different purposes within the commons (Hell<strong>and</strong>, 2006).Water development under the DergThe Rangel<strong>and</strong>s Development Project (RDP) 19 , initiated in 1975 <strong>and</strong> funded by the government <strong>and</strong>the World Bank, was considered the first large scale range improvement effort by government <strong>and</strong>donors. The development <strong>of</strong> water infrastructure was a central feature. The RDP is considered a keyproject among water development practitioners in Ethiopia (across the spectrum from governmentto non-government) which illustrates what not to do in terms <strong>of</strong> water development in therangel<strong>and</strong>s.The RDP aimed to “restructure low output traditional range practices <strong>and</strong> improve efficiency <strong>of</strong>production” (World Bank, 1991), <strong>and</strong> therefore promoted ranching <strong>and</strong> settled forms <strong>of</strong> livestockproduction as a solution to the perceived irrational <strong>and</strong> unproductive pastoral use <strong>of</strong> the rangel<strong>and</strong>s(Hogg, 1993). In essence, the project did not recognize the productivity <strong>of</strong> mobile livestockproduction systems. The World Bank completion report published in 1991 admitted that there wasa lack <strong>of</strong> knowledge <strong>of</strong> pastoralists’ behaviour <strong>and</strong> the drivers behind traditional l<strong>and</strong> use practices.The construction <strong>of</strong> water points was one <strong>of</strong> the only components <strong>of</strong> the project where headwaywas made. Boreholes were constructed on ranches where water catchment was restricted, <strong>and</strong>ponds proliferated in wet <strong>and</strong> dry season grazing areas. The project rationale for water pointconstruction in wet season grazing areas was that it would open up <strong>and</strong> allow more ‘efficient’ use <strong>of</strong>pasture in these areas to reduce pressure on dry season grazing areas (Gebre Mariam, 1982). Largeponds were also constructed in dry season grazing areas (World Bank, 1991).The RDP inserted water points in pastoral areas with little underst<strong>and</strong>ing <strong>of</strong> pastoral dynamics <strong>and</strong>the logic behind pastoral natural resource management strategies. The project did not take on boardwhat local people considered appropriate, <strong>and</strong> water points were planned <strong>and</strong> constructed in a topdownfashion by technical persons with little participation from the grassroots. Water points werealso government owned, <strong>and</strong> management <strong>and</strong> maintenance were the ultimate responsibility <strong>of</strong> localadministration. Therefore, project water points were completely external to traditional systems,which brought with it a loss <strong>of</strong> control over who, how many, <strong>and</strong> when people <strong>and</strong> livestock hadaccess to grazing l<strong>and</strong>. In addition, the <strong>of</strong>ten weak management capacity by local administration sawconflict arise at the grassroots over control <strong>and</strong> access to water points, <strong>and</strong> many <strong>of</strong> the waterpoints constructed at the time fell into disrepair.Assessments <strong>of</strong> the project reflected on some <strong>of</strong> the impacts <strong>of</strong> water point development:• Non-local ownership <strong>and</strong> management responsibility <strong>of</strong> water points resulted in poorlycontrolled access <strong>and</strong> poor maintenance. S<strong>and</strong>ford (1983: 29) states that the government’sclaimed right to control access to water points meant that “additional people who wouldotherwise have been excluded from water points giving access to certain grazing areas are nowallowed in.” Points were also <strong>of</strong>ten inadequately sited <strong>and</strong> inappropriately spaced.• The construction <strong>of</strong> large ponds encouraged permanent settlement so that people could nowmake year-round use <strong>of</strong> surrounding pasture. Overgrazing <strong>and</strong> erosion (pasture degradation)were frequently observed around large capacity water points. Alternative modes <strong>of</strong> production,such as small-scale crop cultivation, also began to appear with the year-round availability <strong>of</strong>water, introducing a competing l<strong>and</strong> use in predominantly rangel<strong>and</strong> areas (Gebre Mariam 1982).19 Implemented through the Southern Rangel<strong>and</strong>s Development Unit (SORDU), the Jijiga Rangel<strong>and</strong>sDevelopment Unit (JIRDU), <strong>and</strong> the Northeast Rangel<strong>and</strong>s Development Unit (NERDU).31