The Internal Socio-political Processes

The past internal political processes also affected pastoralists groups within Ethiopia. In Ethiopia, state formation was punctuated by violent inter-state and intra-state conflicts. The nature of conflict between the various regional powers that vied for control of the state was nearly violent. In the process “divergent groups were integrated, not always successfully, into central state which reflected the values of an elite strongly Christian orthodox group” (Flintan

and Imeru, 2002:246). The authority of Ethiopia rulers before Emperor Menelik II was highly diffused and shifted between different regions. Though the centralization tendency continued under different emperors in the North and Shewa for consolidating their power, centralization of state culminated during the rule of Emperor Menelik, and further consolidated during Emperor Haile Selassie with the emergence of the modern state, modern education, civil and military bureaucracies ((Flintan and Imeru, 2002:245).

In the process of expansion, centralization of administration and consolidation of power, mainly the Amhara and Tigrean elites spread their political and administrative systems, language, culture, and religion into ever-distant areas through forces and assimilation.

Penetration and domination of diverse groups expanded without sufficient emphasis on identification and participation of citizens into the embryonic nation state(Flintan and Imeru, 2002:245). State control means acquisition and control of resources by ruling elites. Thus competition over valuable land and natural resources became common between the central state and various groups/regions incorporated in the central state. Moreover, the central state expanded and imposed a new political and administrative system onto customary social formations in order to strengthen its control over dissident groups. This in turn led to disruption of traditional authority and self-administration of different peripheral groups including pastoralists, as the central state established its structure and incorporated different groups. In this case Nicol et al., (2000) aptly explain, for instance, what was the situation during period of the past two Ethiopian governments:

… under both Haile Silassie and the Derg, maintenance of power and authority was equated with the appropriation of resources for the center and conversely, with denial of access to peripheral communities. In pastoral areas such as the Afar region, state capture and exploitation of land adjoining the Awash has, [as a result,] left the legacy of resentment which directly impacts on resources management in the region (Nicol et al., 2000 as quoted by Flintan and Imeru, 2002:272 ).

In addition to economic and political marginalization, the Ethiopian successive governments followed hostile policies towards pastoral groups. The fact that most pastoral groups inhabit the margin of the country, their area has always been under security surveillance either to suppress internal resistance or to pave off external invasion. Therefore, the state perceived pastoral people and their cross-border movement as a threat to security and reacted violently to any pastoral movements.

In general the social and political processes that were pursued by successive Ethiopian governments have undermined the material base of pastoral economy; traditional self-administration and social cohesion; customary pastoral land tenure and management systems.

It has resulted mainly in the loss of key resources to state or non-pastoral purposes; extraction of resources (through levying heavy tax and tributes in the form of livestock, forest product);

curtailment of pastoral mobility due to provincial boundaries, administrative procedures and delineation of tribal areas; widespread state-society conflict (e.g. resistance often resulted in harassment, killing, confiscation of property, eviction); intra-clan and inter-clan conflicts over resources, etc. Moreover the current situation in pastoral areas is also partly the result of biased and inappropriate development approaches/policies of the previous Ethiopian governments. This is elabourated in the following section.

3.3.2.3 The Past Development Approaches/Policies and their Consequences i. Large-scale Commercial Farms and Conservation Areas. In Ethiopia pastoral areas are mainly situated in lowlands which are often crossed by big perennial rivers (e.g. Awash, Omo, Wabe-Shebelle, Genale-Dawa, Baro-Akobo and Abay). Some of the lakes of the Rift Valley also lie in the traditionally pastoral areas. At different times the Ethiopian Governments have introduced various large-scale development schemes in the river basins where pastoral groups are living. In the past four to five decades the process of external encroachment into pastoral areas has taken place. This included the establishment and expansion of commercial irrigated farms and plantations, and designation of national parks, game reserves and conservation areas. At the time the pastoral land was seen by the state and policy makers as “vast fertile, vacant and unoccupied” area to be harnessed for national development without considering pastoral traditional land use (Ayalew, 2004:243; Getachew, 2004:223). Moreover, settled life and agriculture received more priority than the pastoralism and pastoral economy.

In addition pastoral mobility, which is a crucial adaptation strategy of pastoralists, was perceived by the state and its planners as “backward” and “inferior” to settled agriculture.

Consequently, as some researchers (Getachew, 2002a:785; Yacob, 1999; Mohammed, 2003:41) stated, pastoral groups were regarded as ‘inefficient land users’, ‘lawless’, and Zelan (literally means wanderer) which has derogatory implications. Their movement was also viewed as threat to settled life and state security. These misperceptions were the beginning of economic and political marginalization of pastoral groups. They led to ill-conceived policies or programmes that disrupted pastoralists’ way of life. These included forced settlement of pastoralists; alienation of customary users; inappropriate interventions resulting in overgrazing and land degradation. The detrimental effects of these interventions on different pastoral groups are well documented by many authors (Getachew, 1999, 2000, 2002b, 2001a;

2004; Ayalew, 1997, 2002, 2004; Ali, 1996; 1997; Assefa, 2000; Markakis, 2004).

Some of the consequences identified by many authors included loss of grazing land;

restriction on mobility; displacement; disruption of communal tenure and traditional resource management systems; erosion of traditional local authority; intensification of inter and intra-ethnic conflicts over grazing lands and water points; loss of sacred places; health impacts;

aggravation of effects of drought; economic differentiation among pastoral households, etc.

(Ali, 1997; 1996:206; Ayalew, 2004:246-257; Getachew, 1999:252-53; Markakis, 2004:11).

The advent and expansion of large schemes in the Awash Valley could serve as illustrative for the consequences of external encroachments.

As stated above since the 1950s and 1960s there was a persistent assumption that vast, excess and unutilized land existed in pastoral areas and could be allocated for other uses. This attracted the central government to establish large-scale irrigated commercial farms and national parks. This has been mainly undertaken in the Awash Valley where the Afar pastoralists and other pastoral groups (Issa, Karrayu and Argoba) are living.

Large-scale development schemes in the Awash Valley or elsewhere were established for commercial and political interests of the central state with little or no concern for the

subsistence of the local people. The expansion of commercial farms and delineation of parks have resulted in loss of pastureland, restriction of livestock movements and eviction of pastoral groups. Particularly mobility disruption has put pastoral livelihoods in a precarious situation. One can imagine how risky pastoralism is in a situation where territorial rights alienated, and freedom of movement is curtailed. Markakis explains how these two rights are crucial to pastoral life:

Every herd must have access to dispersed, ecologically specialized and seasonally varied grazing lands and watering holes, in order to provide for the varied foraging needs of different livestock species, and to afford a margin of safety against the vagaries of rainfall (Markakis, 1993, as quoted in Assefa, 2000:94).

Since the 1950s the gradual expansion of commercial farms, plantations and parks in the Awash Valley also led to the eviction of local communities with no compensations. This is illustrated in table 3.4 below.

Table 3.4 Groups Evicted From the Awash Basin Area at Different Times Groups

evicted

The reason for eviction Year Compensation Jille The Dutch HVA Wonji and

Shewa sugar cane estates.

Arsi Nura Erra irrigation scheme 1950s-1960s None. However, they continue to practice pastoralism in hilly Tibila area

Karrayu Sugar cane development between Kessem and Awash rivers.

Awash National Park which resulted in loss of 80,000 ha of dry and wet season grazing land.

1950s

Source: Nicol et al., 2000 quoted by Flintan and Imeru, 2002:273.

These external encroachments also exacerbated competition over scarce resources, and inter and intra-clan conflicts. The frequent conflicts between different pastoral groups (e.g. Afar, Issa, Karrayu, Argoba) are partly the consequences of past development interventions in pastoral areas.

Moreover, the establishment of irrigated commercial farms, plantations and national parks exacerbated the effects of drought; affected pastoral economy and then made the local people more vulnerable to famine or food crisis. A case in point was the effect of Tendaho Cotton Plantation on the Afar pastoralists. Some researchers (e.g. Gamaledin, 1993:56; Lars Bondestam, 1974 cited in Gamaledin, 1993) vividly explained the effects of the scheme and government policy as follows:

When the 1973-74 famine struck, the Afar pastoralists who were denied access to the Awash River and its immediate environs were decimated. Lars Bondestam suggested that almost 30 per cent of the Afar population of the Awash perished. Irrigation and the government’s centralization policy interacting with prolonged drought were mainly responsible for this catastrophe.

The advent and expansion of development schemes also brought social differentiation and inequality among the Afar. It encouraged privatization of some communal lands by clan chiefs and those who were affiliated to central government and private enterprises. These groups of people have benefited either from their own investment in private farms or by collecting rents of tribal lands. On the other hand the ordinary Afar were denied access to grazing lands and to water points and pushed farther into the marginal areas. This will be further elabourated in Chapter 5 (section 5.2.4.1)

ii. The Past Pastoral Sector Development Programmes and Projects. Since the 1960s, the successive Ethiopian Governments initiated and implemented some pastoral development programmes and projects in the pastoral areas. As elsewhere in Africa the policy objectives of those interventions were to increase animal output and for range conservation. For instance the USAID and World Bank assisted projects emphasized the provision of veterinary services, construction of water points, creation of trade routes connecting to the highlands, and creation of public pastures (Helland 1997b cited in Ahmed et al., 2002:120-11; Tafesse, 2001; World Bank, 2001). Institutions were also established to facilitate such interventions. A case in point was the Livestock and Meat Board (LMB) that was established in 1964 to improve marketing infrastructure, mainly in the Borana and Afar pastoral areas (Tafesse, 2001:96-97; World Bank, 2001).

Subsequent projects like the Second Livestock Development Project (SLDP), which went into operation in 1973, and the Third Livestock Development Project (TLDP) were initiated and implemented nearly with similar policy objectives and with some provisions added in the latter. While the SLDP focused on establishing infrastructures like slaughter facilities for provincial towns and cities and tried to improve stock routes and market places for livestock, the TLDP was designed to develop rangelands, including water supply and access roads in the pastoral areas (Tafesse, 2001; Ahmed et al., 2002:12-13).

Pastoral sector development programmes aimed at developing the livestock sector, however, did not bring the intended benefits to pastoral groups. Firstly, those programmes were based on inappropriate assumptions and on the misunderstanding of a pastoral way of life.

Secondly, they were designed and implemented with little or no participation of the pastoral groups. At the time the pastoral areas were viewed as a vast potential for the national development, and the international donor community channelled investment resources and

support to develop the livestock sector. The first rangeland development scheme designed and funded by the World Bank was launched in the 1960s focusing on stimulating livestock production and market take-off. The programme had concentrated on improving access roads, veterinary services and water supplies in the eastern and southern lowlands of Ethiopia (Markakis, 2004:16).

Three more projects followed in the 1970s and 1980s, funded by the World Bank and the African Development Bank. The main deriving force for the investment was to modernise the pastoral sector and to integrate into national and foreign markets. For instance, several projects focused on livestock marketing options in the 1970s and 1980s. The Second Livestock Development Project (SLDP) established the Ethiopian Livestock and Meat Marketing Enterprise which used to buy a substantial number of live animals on a weight basis. The Third Livestock Development Project (TLDP) later sponsored livestock trucking programmes linked to highland fattening schemes. All these programmes have had episodic, but unsustained impacts on the market (World Bank, 2001:6). All that is left of the efforts of programmes are “the rusting bulks of broken machinery, pumps and vehicles strew on the range” (Markakis, 2004:16). “Evaluations of these projects have painted a picture of almost uniform failure - millions of dollars have been invested in development activities, often with no discernible impacts” (Devereux, 2004 cited in Markakis, 2004:16). In addition, most, if not all pastoral or rangeland projects, resulted in negative impacts which included degradation of range lands; high concentration of human and livestock population around boreholes and other services and infrastructures; resource competitions and conflicts; degradation of traditional authorities, etc.

Consequently a series of rangeland or livestock projects have received widespread criticism.

“Policies were designed primary to promote livestock production and not the welfare of producers. The intention was to increase meat production on the cheap for the benefit of urban consumers and for export which means the pastoralists were to gain least” (Markakis, 2004:17). Furthermore, the projects were top-down, unsustainable and failed to provide sufficient technical, institutional and financial support (World Bank, 2001: iv). Yet some institutions (World Bank, 2001) stated that those projects made considerable progress in water development and animal health and in accumulating a wealth of knowledge on pastoral society and economy.

Besides attempt was also made to resettle pastoralists or displaced pastoral groups. During the Imperial and Derg periods “the emphasis was placed on turning nomadic pastoralists into settled cultivators practicing a combination of crop and animal husbandry” (Ayalew, 1997:373). Thus several resettlement schemes were created. For instance some attempt was made to settle the evicted pastoralists, mainly Afar as a token compensation for alienated land through establishing irrigated schemes (e.g. Amibara settlement, the Hale Debi, the Awara-Melka/Doho/ and Dunti). In Afar region, however, the “attempt to sedentarize the nomadic Afar proved to be largely unsuccessful because it did not take into account the ethos of the would-be beneficiaries, and therefore failed to develop strategies of persuading the people of the usefulness of the schemes” (Ayalew, 1997:373). A number of reasons are enumerated for the failure of settlement schemes in the Awash Valley. Some of these include, the top-down nature of the approach; lack of clear policy on how to resettle pastoralists; improper planning;

failure to take into account the traditional clan territoriality; inadequate inputs (e.g. skill training for settlers, investment) (Ayalew, 1997:373-374; Getachew, 2004:235-236).

In terms of provision of social services and infrastructure, pastoral areas are at a disadvantaged position both in the past as well as currently. There are disparities between pastoral and settled areas in terms of social services and infrastructures, especially in communication, education, health and transport (Desta and Coppock, 2004:483). Currently if we take education, the national average gross enrolment rate for primary level is 64.4%. For the Afar and Somali Regional States, it is 13.8 % and 15.1% respectively. In terms of gender disparity Somali Region has the lowest (10%) gross enrolment rate for girls at primary level.

Health statistics are even more desperate. Under five year mortality in Addis Ababa is 113.5%

per live birth, in the Afar Region it is 229.3%, which means one quarter of Afar children die before they reach their fifth year (Ethiopian Demographic and Health Survey, 2000 cited in Markakis, 2004:19). These disparities are partly a legacy of past policy gaps, and biased approaches which favoured settled and urban areas.

In general pastoral development interventions implemented during the previous regimes focused on commercialization of livestock production to exploit the livestock potential in the country. Yet they failed to achieve their intended objectives. Rather, as some authors (Helland cited in Ahmed, et al., 2002: 12-13) argue, those interventions have eroded vital indigenous institutions and affected the environment negatively. Hogg (1997a) also noted that

“development projects allowed little local participation; focused on technical solutions ignoring indigenous strategies; focused on implementation of project components neglecting their maintenance and sustainability; and little focus on cost recovery”.