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

• Insufficient recognition <strong>of</strong> distinct communal grazing areas (albeit with ‘fuzzy’ boundaries to allowfor reciprocal mobility between them in times <strong>of</strong> scarcity), the importance <strong>of</strong> water for thetraditional regulation <strong>of</strong> resource use in these grazing areas, <strong>and</strong> the relationship between thepeople with traditional grazing rights in each, saw frequent fighting around access to projectwater points.Hell<strong>and</strong> (1980; 72) hypothesised the following 30 years ago, which seems to have come to bear insome pastoral areas:“In technical terms, the pastoral resources <strong>of</strong> Borana [<strong>and</strong> other] l<strong>and</strong> can easily be exp<strong>and</strong>ed by diggingstockponds or sinking boreholes. The sociological implications <strong>of</strong> this, however, are likely to be far-reaching. Ifwater is made freely available, this means that the existing social organization, which regulates labour inputs,access to water <strong>and</strong> control over pasture, is stripped <strong>of</strong> a major function. At this stage, one can only predictthat this loss <strong>of</strong> function will weaken the social controls <strong>of</strong> the existing system. If the social controls areweakened, however, one may further predict that…free access to water may be advantageous for theindividual in the short run, but will have serious maladaptive implications. The short term expansion <strong>of</strong> thepastoral resource will be followed by long term degradation.”In sum, the RDP did little to improve rangel<strong>and</strong> management or livestock productivity, <strong>and</strong> decisionsregarding water development eroded traditional water management systems, introduced privateforms <strong>of</strong> l<strong>and</strong> use in the communal rangel<strong>and</strong>s (in parts <strong>of</strong> the country), <strong>and</strong> fuelled l<strong>and</strong> degradation<strong>and</strong> conflict. A lesson learnt from the RDP is that the “participation <strong>of</strong> intended beneficiaries indefining the project concept is fundamental” (World Bank, 1991:27).2.5 Changes in thinkingAlthough early experiences in water development had obvious negative impacts in the rangel<strong>and</strong>s,they also provided a valuable opportunity for practitioners <strong>and</strong> researchers to learn about whatworks <strong>and</strong> what does not in the pastoral context. Some significant changes in approach <strong>and</strong> thinkinghave been observed since. Water development in the rangel<strong>and</strong>s is now more focused on protectinglives <strong>and</strong> livelihoods, <strong>and</strong> the pastoral production system is a recognized form <strong>of</strong> l<strong>and</strong> use mentionedexplicitly in the current government’s constitution, as well as in national development plans <strong>and</strong>programmes (e.g. the Plan for Accelerated <strong>and</strong> Sustained Development to End Poverty, theProductive Safety Net Programme, the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper, <strong>and</strong> others). The RDP <strong>and</strong>other such interventions across East Africa also prompted researchers to critically review therelevance <strong>of</strong> rangel<strong>and</strong> development approaches, which had an avowedly commercial basis (driven bythe World Bank <strong>and</strong> others) <strong>and</strong> were based on equilibrium grazing systems 20 <strong>and</strong> informed by the‘tragedy <strong>of</strong> the commons’ theory. Findings indicate that neither model nor theory applies in thepastoral lowl<strong>and</strong>s, <strong>and</strong> a large body <strong>of</strong> research has been generated since the 1980s touching onthese points (see for example Behnke, 1994). At the same time, towards the end <strong>of</strong> the 1980s, theWorld Bank funded The Fourth Livestock Project. This initiative was the first real attempt atrangel<strong>and</strong> development with an emphasis on pastoral participation to avoid the pitfalls <strong>of</strong> previousapproaches. However, the project never really took <strong>of</strong>f as it was hampered by the political situationat the time <strong>and</strong> by the costs <strong>of</strong> sustaining a bloated pastoral development bureaucracy (Hogg, 1993).20 Behnke (1994: 6) defines equilibrium grazing systems as “characterized by relatively high levels <strong>of</strong> climaticstability resulting in constant levels <strong>of</strong> primary production...livestock populations in these settings can exp<strong>and</strong>to the point where they have a considerable impact on the vegetation, both in terms <strong>of</strong> its species composition<strong>and</strong> density”. Conversely, non-equilibrium environments are “subjected to extremely variable rainfall, [where]fluctuations in rainfall may have a much stronger effect than animal numbers on vegetation.”32