Water Development in Ethiopia’s Pastoral Areas · PDF fileWater Development in...

Water Development in Ethiopia’s Pastoral AreasA synthesis of existing knowledge and experience

Magda Nassef with Mulugeta Belayhun

2012

Tables, figures & boxes ivAbbreviations vAcknowledgements viExecutive summary vii

1 Introduction 11.1 Context and rationale 11.2 Scope and structure 2

2 Pastoralism and water: an introduction 52.1 Importance of pastoralism to livelihoods and the economy 52.2 The pastoral livelihood strategy 72.3 Challenges to pastoralism and the rangelands 82.4 Social organisation and customary institutions for land and water management 8

3 ‘External’ water development, 1970s–1991 113.1 Rangeland and pastoralism under the Derg regime 113.2 Water development under the Derg 113.3 Changes in thinking 14

4 Water development, 1991–the present 174.1 The evolving landscape: actors and interventions 174.2 Pastoralists 174.3 Federal government 184.4 Regional government 234.5 NGOs and development agencies 25

5 Lessons learnt and ways forward 315.1 Good practice: the practitioners’ perspective 315.2 Unpacking the challenges and reviewing successes 325.3 Recommendations 39

References 43Annex 1: National strategies and laws influencing development in pastoral areas 46Annex 2: Major government water and pastoral development programmes 48Annex 3:Water development guidelines 50

ContentsPublished in 2012 by Save the Children USA and Overseas Development Institute

Copyright © 2012 Save the Children USA

Readers are encouraged to quote or reproducematerial from this report for their own publications,as long as they are not being sold commercially. As copyright holder Save the Children request dueacknowledgement and a copy of the publication.

The research for this publication was co-funded by the Overseas Development Institute (ODI),working through the Research-inspired Policy andPractice Learning in Ethiopia (RiPPLE) Programme in Ethiopia (2006–2011); Save the Children USA (SC-US) working through the Enhanced Livelihoods in Southern Ethiopia/Enhanced Livelihoods in theMandera Triangle (ELSE/ELMT) Program (2007–2010);and CARE Ethiopia, working through the GlobalWater Initiative (GWI).

The editing, design and printing of this publication was made possible by the support of the Americanpeople through the United States Agency forInternational Development (USAID) under theCooperative Agreement No 663-A-00-09-00413-00.The contents are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government, ODI, Save theChildren USA or Care.

Photo credits: pp. x, 1, 5, 6, 7, 12, 16, 19, 28, 30, 42 © Kelly Lynch, Save the Children USA.pp. 2, 8, 9, 14, 15, 17, 22, 23, 25, 35, 36, 37, 40 © Save the Children USA, Ethiopia Country Office,Livelihood Unit.

Designed by Nicky Barneby @ Barneby LtdEdited by Nat Mason

CDD Community-driven DevelopmentDFID UK Department for International

Development EC European Commission ECHO Humanitarian Aid Department of the ECELMT Enhanced Livelihoods in the Mandera Triangle ELSE Enhanced Livelihoods in Southern Ethiopia EPRDF Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary

Democratic FrontEU European UnionFAO Food and Agriculture OrganizationFDRE Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia GIS Geographic Information SystemGIZ German Agency for International Cooperation GNP Gross National Product GWI Global Water Initiative HRF Humanitarian Response FundIDP Irrigation Development ProgrammeIIED International Institute for Environment and

DevelopmentIRC International Rescue CommitteeIWRM Integrated Water Resource ManagementLDC Local Development CommitteeMDG Millennium Development GoalMoARD Ministry of Agriculture and Rural

DevelopmentMoFA Ministry of Federal AffairsMoFED Ministry of Finance and Economic

DevelopmentMoI Ministry of InformationMoWR Ministry of Water ResourcesMST Mobile Support TeamMUS Multiple Use ServicesNGO Non-governmental OrganisationOCHA Office for the Coordination of

Humanitarian AffairsODI Overseas Development InstituteOFDA Office of US Foreign Disaster Assistance

OGPC Oromia Growth Corridors PlanOPDC Oromia Pastoral Development CommissionOWWDSE Oromia Water Works Design and

Supervision EnterprisePA Peasant AssociationPADD Pastoral Areas Development DepartmentPASDEP Plan for Accelerated and Sustained

Development to End PovertyPCAE Pastoralist Concern Association EthiopiaPCDP Pastoral Community Development ProjectPLI Pastoral Livelihood InitiativePRA Participatory Rural AppraisalPRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy PaperPSNP Productive Safety Net Programme PSNP-PAP PSNP Pastoral Areas PilotRDD Regional Drought DecisionRDP Rangelands Development ProjectRDPP Regional Drought Preparedness Programme RDPS Rural Development Policies, Strategies and

InstrumentsRiPPLE Research-inspired Policy and Practice

Learning in EthiopiaSC-US Save the Children USA SNNPR Southern Nations, Nationalities and

Peoples RegionUAP Universal Access ProgrammeUK United KingdomUN United NationsUNDP UN Development Programme US United StatesUSAID US Agency for International DevelopmentWSDP Water Sector Development ProgrammeWSSDP Water Supply and Sanitation Development

ProgrammeWSSP Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene

ProgrammeWUA Water Users’ Association

Abbreviations v

Abbreviations

iv Tables, figures and boxes

Tables, figures & boxes

TablesTable 1: Ministries involved in water and pastoral development in Ethiopia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Table 2: National government programmes and projects including water development components in pastoral regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Table 3: Water development in humanitarian response and development scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Table 4: ‘Good practice’ principles for water development in pastoral areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31Table 5: Selected coordination efforts relevant to water and pastoral development in Ethiopia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

FiguresFigure 1: Annual Rainfall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Figure 2: Pastoralist, agro-pastoralist and non-pastoral populations in Afar, Oromia and Somali regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Figure 3: Timeline of events influencing water development and the rangelands in Ethiopia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Figure 4: Formal governance structure in Ethiopia . . . . . . . . 18Figure 5: NGOs and development organisations working on water development in pastoral areas of Ethiopia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Figure 6: Functionality of boreholes in Daro Lebu woreda, Oromia region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

BoxesPromoting irrigated agriculture in Ethiopia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2WUAs in Ethiopia and relevance in the pastoral context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Use of natural resource and socioeconomic mapping and analysis in the PSNP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Platform for integrated water development in Oromia region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Executive summary vii

In Ethiopia’s arid areas, where pastoralism is thedominant livelihood, practical field experience overthe past forty years indicates that water developmentdivorced from an in-depth understanding of pastorallivelihoods can compromise sustainable developmentin the long term, even if it stems water shortages inthe short term.

Pastoral water point construction significantlypredates the involvement of the state and otheractors. Customary water management practices were(and still are) tailored to a mobile livelihood system,which itself is a response to the requirements ofdryland environments where climate is highly variablein time and space. Pastoralists use water managementas a means to manage the wider rangelands, given thataccess to and availability of water affect who and howmany have access to surrounding pasture and grazingareas. By carefully locating water points, especially invulnerable dry season pastures, and regulating accessthrough customary systems dependent on negotiationand reciprocity, mobility is both facilitated and madenecessary. Mobility itself is a sophisticated response tothe unique characteristics of dryland environments,and is central to ensuring that pastures can recoverseasonally, allowing the pastoral livelihood to remainsustainable in an environment where other sedentaryland uses have failed.

The healthy economic performance of the pastoralproduction system in some of the harshest landscapesin the country attests to its value. In Ethiopia, thelivestock sector is a significant foreign exchangeearner – in 2006, the country earned $121 millionfrom livestock and livestock-related products (IIEDand SOS Sahel, 2010). The direct value of pastoralismis estimated to be $1.68 billion per annum (SOS Sahel Ethiopia, 2008) – and this does not reflectsubstantial unofficial trade in livestock and livestockproducts.

From the 1970s, especially after the severe droughtin 1973, pastoral regions became a focus of attentionfor government as well as national and international

development and humanitarian agencies. Solutions towater shortages at the time were technocratic andtop-down, with little consideration of pastorallivelihood strategies or the customary institutionsunderpinning them. The construction of large ponds,for example, made water available year-round,encouraging permanent settlement and perennialgrazing in areas which were previously used onlyseasonally. Overgrazing and erosion were frequentlyobserved around these water points, and increasinglysedentary herds amplified the incidence of human andlivestock health problems.

Shifts in thinking regarding water development inpastoral areas are now emerging as a result of lessonslearned over the past forty years. These shifts havebeen observed in practice in a number ofgovernment, development agency and NGO projectsand programmes. Increased awareness and emphasisis now in evidence, that

• Water points can alter usage patterns for otherresources, such as pasture, to the detriment ofrangeland quality and livelihoods.

• Pastoral livelihoods are influenced by internal andexternal social, cultural and political aspects whichoften differ from those in sedentary highlandcommunities.

• Pastoralists themselves have an important role toplay in the water development process, especiallygiven their detailed knowledge of the rangelands.Approaches are evolving, from end users simplyexpressing demand for water and being tasked withthe operation and maintenance of water points, toinvolvement throughout planning, construction andmanagement.

• Water development should be coupled with otherdevelopment interventions in the rangelands, suchas improving marketing opportunities for livestockand providing veterinary services.

• The ‘software’ component of any waterdevelopment (embedding local capacity to operate,

The authors would like to express their thanks to thepartners who supported this research, namely: theOverseas Development Institute (ODI), workingthrough the Research-inspired Policy and PracticeLearning in Ethiopia (RiPPLE) Programme in Ethiopia(2006–2011), funded by UKaid from the UKDepartment for International Development (DFID);CARE Ethiopia, working through the Howard G.Buffet Foundation-funded Global Water Initiative(GWI); and Save the Children USA (SC-US) workingthrough the US Agency for InternationalDevelopment (USAID)-funded Enhanced Livelihoodsin Southern Ethiopia/Enhanced Livelihoods in theMandera Triangle (ELSE/ELMT) Program.

Numerous individuals from donor anddevelopment agencies, non-governmentalorganisations (NGOs), research and academicinstitutes and government contributed their time andexpertise to the study. Particular thanks go to theover 50 informants who participated in interviews forthe study.

The authors would like to thank Alan Nicol, formerDirector of ODI’s RiPPLE Program in Ethiopia for

initiating this study. Thanks to Eva Ludi, ResearchFellow at ODI, London, Adrian Cullis, formerDirector of the Food and Livelihoods Programme, aswell as the rest of the team at SC-US Ethiopiaincluding and especially Fiona Flintan, former RegionalNRM Technical Advisor for the ELSE/ELMT Programand Coordinator for the NRM Technical WorkingGroup in Addis Ababa, and Charles Hopkins, PastoralProgram Manager for CARE Ethiopia, and the rest ofthe team at CARE for support during the study andcomments on earlier drafts. I would also like to thankthe staff of ODI’s RiPPLE Programme in Addis Ababaand Hawassa, who have facilitated the work in Ethiopia.

The authors would also like to thank Alan Nicol,Ced Hesse, Axel Weiser and Eva Ludi for theirreview and comments.

This report, edited by Nathaniel Mason (ODI), isbased on a draft report written in 2010/11 based oninformation collected in 2009.

Financial support for editing, layout and printing ofthe report from Save the Children (USA) through itsUSAID-funded Pastoral Livelihoods Initiative (PLI)Phase II Project is appreciated.

vi Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements Executive summary

Executive summary ix

• Simultaneously address other development needsin the rangelands besides the need for water (e.g.human and livestock health and access to markets)to effectively address vulnerability and poverty inthe long term;

• Make better use of existing research to informwater development planning and implementationand promote knowledge-sharing betweenpractitioners and projects, for example throughlearning and practice alliances;

• Increase the capacity of locally representativewater users to plan, construct, operate, manage andmaintain water points, fostering an environment inwhich communities (including pastoralists) areimplementers rather than merely recipients ofdevelopment;

• Promote coordinated and harmonised approachesamong development and humanitarian practitionersworking on water development in the rangelands.

manage and maintain) is as important as thephysical infrastructure.

• Rehabilitating existing water points can help inavoiding the risks associated with newdevelopments, especially when project duration isshort (e.g. in emergency relief interventions).

• Linking emergency relief interventions to longer-term development objectives can reduce the riskof inappropriate or negative outcomes.

• Sustainability can be enhanced by increasingcommunity buy-in to water development byrequiring a cash or labour contribution; selectingsimpler water point technologies which are familiarand have easily obtainable spare parts; and traininga local cadre of artisans able to construct andmaintain water points.

• Partnerships and dialogue can facilitate cross-fertilisation of ideas and approaches todevelopment in the rangelands and reducefragmentation.

Despite these shifts, water delivery approachesdesigned for sedentary communities continue topredominate. A paradox persists at the heart ofnational government policy on pastoral developmentin the rangelands, including the role of water within it.The short-term aim is to support customary pastoralproduction systems. But in the long term, nationalpolicy focuses on ‘voluntarily’ settling pastoralists byproviding livelihood diversification opportunities,mostly around irrigated agriculture. Ambitiousgovernment targets for water supply and irrigationexpansion incentivise hardware construction at theexpense of participation and ‘software’ components.Technocratic approaches still predominate, despiteinstances of highly participatory methods gearedtowards understanding particular social, political,environmental and economic contexts, includingcustomary institutions. Water is still too oftendeveloped in isolation from broader natural resourcemanagement, even though it is recognised as a keyresource. It is also frequently developed without dueattention to other critical development needs such asaccess to markets, health services for people andlivestock and education. This is especially the caseamong short-term emergency relief and humanitarianresponses, as opposed to longer-term development-oriented interventions.

Finally, an overarching constraint is incoherence inapproach and weak communication between water

development actors, including non-governmentalorganisations (NGOs), development agencies andgovernment, creating an environment where it is easyfor inappropriate water development to gounchecked.

Today’s realities in many of the country’s drylandscannot be ignored, including the facts that populationis increasing, people require diverse livelihoodopportunities which may lie outside pastoralproduction, and highland populations are beingresettled to the lowlands. Ultimately, multiple needsand priorities in the rangelands must beacknowledged and all options fully and fairly exploredto enhance national economic growth and ensuresustainable livelihoods – including pastoral livestockproduction.

To date, no broad overview exists of waterdevelopment in Ethiopia’s pastoral regions. Thisreport fills this gap and presents a synthesis ofexperience over the past 40 years in the waterdevelopment sector in the country’s pastoral regions.It reflects on experiences derived from waterdevelopments undertaken by pastoralists,government, development agencies and NGOs,consolidating a diverse range of documentaryevidence and the opinions of over 50 expertsinterviewed. Findings are evaluated and ‘goodpractices’ identified, culminating in a set ofpreliminary guidelines to inform water developmentin the pastoral context. These guidelines constitutethe report’s recommendations, including

• Promote the use of rigorous assessments tomeasure the impact of water developments onlivelihoods and learn from documented ‘good’ and‘poor’ experiences;

• Ensure water is developed as part of aparticipatory rangeland development process, witha prerequisite in-depth analysis of broader political,institutional, economic and environmental contextto inform planning;

• Promote effective participation through theinvolvement of recognised institutions or groupsrepresentative of local communities. These groupsor institutions may exist (customary institutions,water user associations (WUAs), pastoralassociations) or may still need to be established.Additional understanding may need to bedeveloped of customary institutions as dynamic,evolving entities;

viii Water Development in Ethiopia’s Pastoral Aareas

Introduction 1

1.1 Context and rationale

Water development enables the provision of a vitalresource to sustain humans, animals and plants inEthiopia’s arid areas. Pastoralism is the dominant formof livelihood in such areas. One definition of pastoral -ism is where more than 50% of income is obtainedfrom livestock and livestock products and mobility isessential to avoid climatic risk and ensure sustainability.For centuries, pastoral communities have developed asophisticated network of water resources – includingrivers, rainwater and groundwater-fed permanentsources – and complex customary institutionsthrough which to coordinate development andmanage access. This system, including both its physicaland its institutional components, critically ensures

that the availability and exploitation of waterresources does not jeopardise other resources,particularly by avoiding high concentrations ofanimals, which can threaten the health of therangeland and livestock itself and lead to conflict.

Within the past 40 years, inspired especially by the1973 drought, non-pastoral actors, namely,government, development agencies and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have joined incontributing to water development with both positiveand negative consequences. Hand-dug wells alongrivers give communities much-needed access to cleanwater, whereas oversized ponds encouragesedentarisation and overconcentration of people andlivestock in potentially vulnerable landscapes.Meanwhile, pastoral communities themselves

1 Introduction

Introduction 3

approaches have changed over the past decades; andwhat some of the current major interventions are(additional information in this regard is presented inAnnex 2).

The analysis presented in the main report goesbeyond an enumeration of actors and activities toevaluate what is and what is not working, not onlywithin each actor’s activities but also as these interactwith other interventions and with the social, politicaland environmental context in Ethiopia’s aridlowlands3. It is hoped that, in addition to facilitatinglearning among partners, the findings will informother actors engaged in water development inpastoral areas, encourage reflection on currentapproaches and practice and assist in developingwater programmes in pastoral areas which canaddress water shortages and meet the demand forwater without encouraging conflict, rangeland

degradation and the weakening of rangeland-dependent livelihoods.

The partners have specifically restricted thecontent of this report to a discussion of waterdevelopment for livestock use (which by default oftenextends to direct human use) in arid areas of Ethiopiawhere livestock keeping is the dominant livelihoodand where agricultural production is limited owing toinsufficient and unreliable rainfall. These areas areinhabited predominantly by pastoralists (rather thansedentary land users) and generally are the lowlandparts of the country. Regions covered in this revieware Afar, Somali and the arid zones of Oromia andSNNPR (see Figure 1). This report does not includeinformation from other pastoralist areas such as partsof Gambella, Benishangul-Gumuz and Tigray regions.

After this introduction (Section 1), the main reportis structured in four sections. Section 2 introducespastoralism in Afar, Oromia, Somali and SNNPR, andthe relationship between pastoral livelihoods andwater: current status and challenges and thecustomary management strategies that in many casespredate, but continue to evolve with, such challenges.Sections 3 and 4 provide an overview of the actors

continue to evolve their practices, with similarlynegative as well as positive consequences. Theproliferation of birkado – cement-lined undergroundcisterns – driven by pastoralists in Somali region inthe 1960s has in some cases led to theoverconcentration of people and livestock1. Lessonsare being learnt by some (Gomes, 2006), but birkado

continue to dominate the technology options offeredby development agencies, who equate traditionaltechnologies with sustainability, no matter how theyare applied.

As much as water point development can havepositive short-term consequences, practical fieldexperience over the past 40 years indicates that,without an in-depth understanding of needs, land usepatterns and ecological functions associated withpastoral livelihoods, resources and livelihoodsthemselves can be compromised in the long term.Water development also needs to be situated withinthe wider ‘development’ agenda – for example theencouragement of irrigation which is placing severepressure on pastoral livelihoods and the resourcebase in arid regions.

To date, no broad overview exists of waterdevelopment in Ethiopia’s pastoral regions. Thisreport aims to fill this gap and presents a synthesis ofexperience over the past 40 years. The purpose isfirst and foremost to inform and improve the qualityof project partners’2 work. It is also hoped that thissynthesis will usefully inform the water developmentsector more broadly.

1.2 Scope and structure

This report considers water development undertakenby government, both regional and national, NGOs,development partners and pastoralists themselves –with that of the latter having evolved (and continuingto evolve) for far longer than the past 40 years. Thefindings are based on an extensive review ofpublished and unpublished documents and over 50 in-depth interviews with development practitioners andrepresentatives of government and donor agenciesengaged in water development in pastoral regions.

The report maps the institutions, policies,programmes and activities of different actors, so as tounderstand who is involved; where and how they areundertaking water development; whether and how

2 Water Development in Ethiopia’s Pastoral Aareas

1. Though there is nothing intrinsically wrong with birkado, theirconstruction in wet season grazing areas encouraged people tosettle permanently around them, and to use rangelands year-round, leading to rangeland degradation and disease proliferation(Gomes, 2006). 2. The Research-inspired Policy and Practice Learning in Ethiopia(RiPPLE) Programme, originally funded by UKaid from the UKDepartment for International Development (DFID) through the

Overseas Development Institute (ODI), now continuing as aproject under Hararghe Catholic Secretariat; Save the ChildrenUSA (SC-US) working through the US Agency for InternationalDevelopment (USAID)-funded Enhanced Livelihoods in SouthernEthiopia/Enhanced Livelihoods in the Mandera Triangle(ELSE/ELMT) program; and CARE Ethiopia, working through theHoward G. Buffet Foundation-funded Global Water Initiative(GWI).

Promoting irrigated agriculture in Ethiopia

In the past 50 years, as per 2003 estimates,around 60,000 ha of key dry season grazing areashas been developed for irrigated agriculturealong the Awash River. In Somali region, theGode irrigation scheme has 27,000 haearmarked for irrigation expansion. In SouthOmo in the Southern Nations, Nationalities andPeoples Region (SNNPR), large-scale commercialirrigation schemes are planned which may alsoresult in the loss of key grazing lands. Estimatesin 2003 indicate that about 1.9 million ha hasbeen excised from the rangelands for cropproduction. This figure is undoubtedly highertoday as irrigation expansion continues to bepursued in Ethiopia’s pastoral regions. Source: Yemane (2003).

3. The report considers the government’s drive to diversifypastoral livelihoods by introducing and expanding medium-andlarge-scale irrigation schemes and promoting more settled formsof livestock production. However, it is beyond its scope to give adetailed analysis of the socioeconomic ramifications ofagricultural expansion and resulting sedentarisation.

Sudan

Eritrea

Djibou

ti

Somalia

KenyaUganda

Tigray

Amhara

Somali

Oromiya

BenishangulGumuz

Gambella

SNNPR

Dire Dawa

HarariAddis Ababa

Red Sea

Gulf of Aden

International BoundaryRegional boundary

Annual Rainfall (mm)

90

2200

Lake

AfarAdministrative Boundary: CSA (2007 pop.census purpose)Rainfall Data: NMA

The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on the map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations

0 5025 100 150 km

Figure 1 Annual Rainfall (as of 7 March 2012) (Source: UN OCHA, Ethiopia)

2.1 Importance of pastoralism tolivelihoods and the economy

Pastoral production remains the dominant land use inEthiopia’s lowlands, which occur below an elevation of1500m and constitute between 54% and 61% of thecountry’s surface area (Coppock, 1994). Pastoralistsare defined variously in the literature as those whoobtain more than half their income from livestock andlivestock products and who characteristically practisemobility to avoid risk, respond to variable climaticconditions and ensure healthy livestock andrangelands. A further category of agro-pastoralists isdefined as those who practise some degree ofmobility but obtain less than half their income fromlivestock, with most of the remainder coming fromcrop cultivation.

In Afar region, pastoralists make up 90% of theestimated 1.4 million population, with the remainderpractising agro-pastoralism (Figure 2). A total of 85%of Somali region’s 4.4 million people are pastoralists,(FDRE, 2007; World Bank, 2008), and pastoralists alsorepresent a significant proportion of the population inOromia and SNNPR’s arid lowlands (World Bank,2008). Agriculture has to date extended to a relativelysmall area – about 0.3% of the total land area in Afarregion and 5.5% in Somali region (ibid.). However,crop production is becoming more widespread insome areas. For example, in Oromia, where onlyaround 5% of the land is under cultivation(OWWDSE, 2009) the area set aside for cropproduction in one study area has increased by afactor of 12, from 1.4% in 1986 to 16.3% in the late1990s (McCarthy et al, 2001).

Pastoralism and Water: an introduction 5

2 Pastoralism and water: an introduction

that have become involved in the past 40 years and their different activities in relation to waterdevelopment in pastoral areas. Section 3 covers theperiod up to the fall of the Derg regime in 1991 andSection 4 the period from 1991 to the present,framed by the current government’s policies andprogrammes (at national and regional level) and theactivities of its development partners and NGOs.These sections go beyond the descriptive, however,introducing the complex challenges that arise at themany intersections – between pastoralism and otherlivelihoods, water and other resources and customaryand administrative institutions. Section 5 consolidatesthe analysis and draws out ‘good practice’ from thepreceding sections and the contributions of expertsinterviewed. The report closes with a suggestion ofprinciples which, it is hoped, can inform thedevelopment of guidelines for water development inthe pastoral context.

The present report is a summary of a longer draftversion produced in 2011. Data for the original

report were collected over a two-month period in2009 primarily in Addis Ababa but with visits to Afar, SNNPR and Somali Region. Semi-structuredinterviews were conducted with over 50representatives from national and regionalgovernment, development organisations, donoragencies, research institutions and pastoralassociations. An extensive review of published andunpublished documents was also conducted. AnEthiopian consultant was brought on board to focuson interviews and documentation review in Afar andSomali regions, to determine whether feedback atregional level corroborated findings at federal level.Data, viewpoints and documentation were alsoobtained through email communications with severalinternational experts with expertise in pastoraldevelopment and with experience in Ethiopia.Additional literature was collected from experts andpractitioners in the field and from resource centres inAddis Ababa and elsewhere.


Livestock production makes a major contributionto the national economy, generating significant foreignexchange ($121 million in 2006 – IIED and SOS Sahel,2010), while pastoral livestock production contributes30% of gross national product (GNP) and 90% of hardcurrency generated from live animal exports(Kassahun et al., 2008). The direct value of pastorallivestock production has been put at $1.22 billion perannum, with additional indirect values of almost half abillion from draught power, manure, tourism andrangeland products such as gums and resins (SOSSahel Ethiopia, 2008). Unofficial earnings may exceedofficial figures significantly – Scott-Villiers (2006)estimated cross-border livestock sales in Somaliregion at three to six times the official figures for thewhole country.

2.2The pastoral livelihood strategy

Within the extensive rangelands of these regions,scarce and variable rainfall dictates the presence orabsence of pasture on which livestock depend. Therainy season permits pastoralists to disperse over awide area, while the grazing range contracts in thedry season around permanent water sources such asrivers or groundwater-fed wells. The high degree ofmobility during grazing allows dry season grazingareas to recover between seasons and contributes torangeland health by stimulating vegetation growth,fertilising the soil, aiding seed dispersal to maintainpasture diversity and preventing bush encroachment(Hesse and MacGregor, 2006). Comparison with areasaround permanent settlements reveals higher levels ofdegradation than in open rangeland where mobilepastoralism is practised (Fuller, 1999).

The ‘tragedy of the commons’ hypothesis, which

proposes that individual herders eventually overgrazeand deplete open access pasture by indiscriminatelyincreasing herd size (Hardin, 1968), does not reflectreality in the rangelands. In fact, access is not ‘open’,but rather is regulated through negotiation andreciprocity within a system of communal land tenure.Groups are often associated with specific territorieswhich contain critical natural resources such asgrazing land and water resources, but membership,and boundaries between these territories, is often‘fuzzy’ to accommodate mobility in times of scarcity(Mwangi and Dohrn, 2006). The variable location ofrainy season and dry season pastures from year toyear increases the need for such a flexible system.Reciprocity is expected when the tables are turned(Beyene and Korf, 2008). Traditional institutions allowdifferent clans or groups to be represented indecision-making regarding access to land and water(Gomes, 2006).

The persistence of the pastoralist livelihoodstrategy in much of the arid lowlands attests to itsrationality and flexibility, but mobility is essential.Devereux (2006) finds that where mobility isunhindered, pastoral households are more

Pastoralism and water : an introduction 7

Pastoral

Agro-pastoral

Pastoral

Agro-pastoral and other

Pastoral and Agro-pastoral

Other

1.26 3.74 27

0.14 0.66 4.32

Afar Somali Oromia

Figure 2 Pastoralist, agro-pastoralist and non-pastoral populations in Afar, Oromia and Somali regions (millions)Sources: FDRE (2007); OWWDSE (2009); World Bank (2008).

natural pans for as long as it naturally lasts, andtherefore to surrounding pastures (Helland, 1980 inSandford, 1983). For seasonal water points, like ponds,some regulation and labour may be required tomaintain the water point (Helland, 1980; Hogg, 1997).Access to water from permanent water sources indry season grazing areas is likely to be controlledmore strictly – especially in times of scarcity – tosupport a limited number of people and livestock(Helland, 1980 in Sandford, 1983).

Customary institutions have evolved over time:they are not fossilised entities which conform tohistorical descriptions – a fact which should be keptin mind in the following overview of how pastoralgroups in different regions manage land and water.

AfarLand in Afar is divided into sultanates, which arefurther divided into tribe and clan territories(Getahun, 2004). Indigenous pastoral law determinesaccess to and control of natural resources. Each clanusually presides over a number of strategic resources,such as wet and dry season grazing areas and water

points. Decisions on access to and control of naturalresources are made by the village council, whichconsists of the clan leader, clan elders, local wise menand a traditional rule-enforcing unit (Hundie, 2006). Inthe wet season, Afar livestock graze open rangelandsmanaged by the different tribal units. However,scarcity of water in the dry season leads pastoralistsback to the Awash River, which is the principal dryseason water source. Grazing around the river isdelineated and managed by clans through a leader’scouncil (Getahun, 2004).

BoranaEthiopia’s Borana have some of the most elaboratewater control and management systems in thecountry. In terms of access to land (pasture),management is traditionally the responsibility ofterritorial units (deedhas), the boundaries of whichare porous and changeable depending on theresources available. A complex customaryadministrative structure, the gaada, administers thedeedhas, according to the customs and laws of theBorana, the ada seera (Tache, 2000).

Pastoralism and water : an introduction 9

economically and food-secure than their settledcounterparts, and that many pastoral settlements inEthiopia were partially or entirely abandoned in thedroughts of 2004 and 2006. Little et al. (2008) reach asimilar conclusion, showing that households are lesslikely to lose their livestock assets and become food-insecure if they remain mobile. Despite this, tragedyof the commons thinking greatly influencedapproaches in the early years of development inEthiopia’s lowlands, and continues to do so.

2.3 Challenges to pastoralism andthe rangelands

Despite the positive contributions of pastoralism tolivelihoods, the economy and rangeland health, certainrealities cannot be ignored:

• Population increase, including via the resettlementof highland populations to the lowlands, who willlikely require livelihood options based onagriculture;

• Stubborn encroachment of prosopis juliflora;• Excision of grazing areas for irrigation, especially

dry season pastures near to permanent watersources;

• Further demarcation and enclosure for uses suchas national parks, private grazing and cropcultivation (including by pastoralists, as well asimmigrants and refugees);

• Increased sedentarisation and the proliferation ofwater points, which promote settlement; and

• Poor rangeland management and continueddegradation.

With powerful underlying drivers, including climate,conflict, poverty and demographics, these factorscontribute to shrinkage of land available for grazingand reduced opportunities for mobility. AmongEthiopia’s pastoral communities, the effects aredecreased per capita holdings of livestock, anincreased trend towards agro-pastoralism (Yemane,2003) and more pastoral dropouts who seek petty labour in permanent settlements (Desta et al.,2008).

Pastoralism is not the only livelihood in therangelands, and multiple needs and priorities as wellas livelihood strategies must be explored fully andimpartially to enable enhanced national economicgrowth without compromising sustainable livelihoods.This importantly includes mobile pastoral livelihoods.The policy response to date, however, has beenincoherent and on the whole favours settled forms oflivelihoods, which puts certain livelihoods at adisadvantage from the outset National governmentleans towards promoting settlement as a long-termobjective, believing this to be the only lasting andsustainable solution to protect livelihoods. Thisattitude is shared by some donors, NGOs anddevelopment agencies. Others staunchly supportmobility. Many NGOs continue to make waterdevelopment decisions based primarily on technicalconsiderations with insufficient consideration oflivelihood dynamics and the risk of increasingsedentarisation. However, both NGO and localgovernment staff recruited from pastoral areas havefirst-hand knowledge of the need for livestockmobility and seasonal recovery of rangelands.

2.4 Social organisation andcustomary institutions for land andwater management

Identity plays a central role across Ethiopia in termsof who has access to what land. In Afar and Somaliregions for example, clans or sub-clans are associatedwith specific home areas, although other groups areallowed access based on established relationships andnegotiation (Getahun, 2004; Hogg, 1997). Whiledifferent customary rules and regulations modulatingwater access and use exist among different pastoralgroups across the country, these share a few commoncharacteristics. In the wet season, anyone with grazingrights in a given area has access to water collected in


‘External’ water development 1970s–1991 11

3.1 Rangeland and pastoralismunder the Derg regime

Before the 1970s, protection and sustaining liveli -hoods received little attention in pastoral regions, andinterventions concentrated on developing land forcommercial irrigated agriculture along rivers.However, measures and policies implemented underthe Derg regime (1974–1991) left a lasting impact onland and people in the rangelands, with a number oftop-down solutions imposed and little participationfrom the grassroots. The most important were:

• Prohibition of controlled burning to manage therangelands, which saw an increase in bushencroachment and shrinkage of the land usable forgrazing;

• Aggressive promotion of agricultural expansion;• Creation of Peasant Associations (PAs) as lowest-

level administrative units;• Enforcement of policies to sedentarise pastoralists

(Kamara et al., 2002); and• Land nationalisation in the highlands.

The 1975 Nationalisation of Rural LandsProclamation in principle granted pastoralists rightsto access grazing land, but in practice their prioritiescame second to those of the state (Elias, 2008), whichwas mandated ‘to improve grazing areas, to dig wellsand to settle the nomadic people for farmingpurposes’ (Hogg, 1993). All commercial agriculturalconcessions granted under Emperor Haile Selassiewere nationalised, and the regime aggressivelypursued the expansion of state farms, with specialsupport provided for agricultural development.Choice areas set aside for state irrigation projectsoften lay in key pastoral dry season grazing areaswhich were essential for livestock survival in times ofdrought (Helland, 2006).

PAs (similar to today’s kebeles) effectivelyintroduced a parallel system of natural resource

governance in the rangelands alongside customarygovernance. Where pastoral groups previouslynegotiated access to land and water resources acrossfuzzy boundaries to permit mobility, PA boundaries‘legitimized and hardened clan-based claims to landand water resources’, being loosely based on maadda[a traditional Borana territorial unit] in Borana and onthe home areas of Somali sub-clans in Somali region(Hogg, 1997). PA chairmen, usually officials with thereceived wisdom of the agricultural highlands, butwith little appreciation for traditional landmanagement systems, were given authority to allocateland, preside over issues related to resource use andmake decisions on water rights, effectively replacingtraditional elders (Kamara et al., 2003). Individualpastoralists (and non-pastoralists) could disregard thecodes and decisions of customary institutions andseek potentially more favourable outcomes from PAauthorities (Sandford, 1983; Tache, 2000). Withoutformal recognition of communal tenure, individualsoften sought to secure access by creating privatereserves for different purposes within the commons(Helland, 2006).

3.2 Water development under the Derg

Shortly after the rise of the Derg regime, the WorldBank and government-funded RangelandsDevelopment Project (RDP) was initiated (1975), withan emphasis on developing water infrastructure. TheRDP aimed to ‘restructure’ what were perceived ‘lowoutput traditional range practices’ (World Bank,1991) by promoting ranching and settled forms oflivestock production. These interventions were seenas solutions to the perceived irrational andunproductive pastoral use of the rangelands (Hogg,1993). In essence, the project did not recognise theproductivity of mobile livestock production systems.On completion of the project, the World Bank

3 ‘External’ water development,1970s–1991

In terms of access to water, which in turninfluences which pasture can be used when and bywhom, access is determined on different basesdepending on type and season. For ponds and poolsthat fill up in the wet season, a contribution tomaintenance usually secures access. Construction,maintenance and cooperation around the use ofponds and surface catchments is usually undertakenat the level of the reera, a smaller territorial scale thanthe deedha – members are encouraged to use pondsin their own reera to avoid overusing neighbouringresources (Tache, 2000). When water levels in pondsare observed to be dropping too fast, precedence isgiven to the domestic use of the closest ollas (groupsof households with associated cattle enclosures) andadult cattle are excluded in favour of calves. Ifnecessary, even calves will be excluded and must bemoved to other ponds or wells (Bassi, 2005).

Traditional wells are critical sources of dry seasonwater and ‘belong’ to clans, as considerable labourinputs are needed for both construction andextraction of water. An individual, called the konfi,instigates the digging of a well, becoming ‘father of thewell’, or abbaa ellaa, securing access priority anddecision making privileges rather than absoluteownership. Though the konfi has decision makingprivileges with regards the well, he is closely observedby clan elders who make sure that he makes decisionsin line with the customs and laws of the Borana(Helland, 1980). The konfi recruits assistance fromwithin his own clan and from other clans and lineagesin terms of obtaining the labour and the cattlenecessary to sustain the digging crew during theconstruction work. Contributing clans thereby alsoearn access rights to the well. Borana who have notcontributed to well construction may also beextended temporary access rights in times of need.Traditional regulations determine access to the well interms of the day and the position in the queue forthat day, overseen by the ‘father of turns’ (abbaaherregaa), who is chosen by the abaa ella. The numberof positions in the queue depends on the amount of

water available and the rate of water seepage4 (Bassi,2005).

SomaliTerritories in Somali region are associated moreclosely with clans and sub-clans, with boundaries thathave shifted historically on the basis of inter-clanpower dynamics (Hogg, 1997). Prior to the 1960s, theHaud plateau was predominantly wet season grazingland, with associated permanent dry season waterpoints located in Somaliland (Walker and Sugule,1998). However, the construction, by pastoralists,ofbirkado in wet season grazing land allowed people tosettle permanently around these structures,effectively establishing dry season nuclei across aformerly wet season landscape. Birkado are usuallyowned by wealthier individuals (or sometimesgroups) who have the means to pay for theconsiderable construction costs. Those who cannotafford to construct their own birkado have to pay foraccess, on a negotiated basis but with the highestprices in the dry season (Gomes, 2006). The privateownership of birkado means potential exclusion fromwater access for those with no means to pay (or forother reasons), which in turn means exclusion fromsurrounding grazing forcing herders to seek out otherbirkado with more agreeable owners or provokingconflict over access (Devereux, 2006).

In areas with adequate groundwater, hand-dug wellsare common, usually belonging to clans butsometimes owned individually. When water isplentiful, clan-owned wells are available for otherclans living in the area and for those migrating insearch of water, usually for free. However, access towater follows an established hierarchy, which isstrictly enforced, especially in times of scarcity. Theperson who constructed the well and their family arefirst in line to the water, followed by clan members,with non-clan members last (Gomes, 2006). Deepwells, which require considerable labour forexcavation and water extraction, follow a similarmanagement system to the Borana’s.


4. Each well has its own capacity to produce water. Whenpastoralists drain water out, the water accumulated in the bottomof the well decreases, but is constantly fed by seepage. Seepagevaries with the season, affecting the number of cattle that can bewatered daily. The use of mechanised pumps in the vicinity oftraditional wells is likely to affect this capacity (Marco Bassi,Research Officer, African Studies Centre, University of Oxford,U.K, personal communication).

1970s1980s

1990s2000s

2010s

1974 The Derg regimecomes to power, and centralgovernment extends reach tocommunity level through thePeasant Associations (PA),established as lowestadministrative units. PAboundaries were based onethnic boundaries, legitimizingclan-based claims toresources.

Major events and policies: 1) ban on use of controlledburning for rangemanagement, 2) emphasison agricultural expansion, 3) enforcement of policy tosedentarise pastoralists.

Increasing government, donors and developmentorganizations interest in developing the rangelands.

Considerable research undertaken refuting the ‘tragedyof the commons’ scenario in rangelands – much of itbased on lessons learned from the RDP.

Global pressure for democratization and increasingemphasis on participation in development planning.

Development partners continue to address serviceprovision and respond to emergencies in pastoralareas, though donors shift focus away fromdevelopment in lowlands.

Water Resources Management Policy (1999) topromote national coherence on water development.

Major shift in pastoral development thinking towardsholistic and participatory development (PastoralCommunity Development Project (PCDP), PastoralLivelihoods Initiative (PLI)). However, this is slow totranslate into practice.

National strategies focusing on resilience, food securityand livelihood transformation to achieve growth andclimate change adaptation. Activities identified toachieve these objectives such as expanding irrigatedagriculture or promoting social and economic servicesdesigned for settled communities, might, in the longerterm, undermine pastoralists resilience.

1991 Ethiopian People’sRevolutionary DemocraticFront (EPRDF) comes topower, introducing adecentralization policy withemphasis on participation indevelopment planning.

Water as well as pastoraldevelopment become regionalresponsibilities. Regionalgovernments are responsiblefor drafting/implementingpolicies and plans in line withfederal policies, plans, andstrategies. Though centralministries still play animportant role, especially inAfar and Somali regions.

Derg’s sedentarisation policyrevoked.

1984

Severe drought

Figure 3 Timeline of eventsinfluencing water development andthe rangelands in Ethiopia

1994 Pastoralism as a livelihoodacknowledged in theFederal Constitution of1994, but emphasison expansion ofagriculture continues.

1973

Severe drought

1975 RangelandDevelopment Project(RDP) – first major non-pastoral developmentintervention in therangelands.

‘External’ water development 1970s–1991 15

Poverty (PASDEP), the Productive Safety NetProgramme (PSNP) and others). Implications forwater development include increased awareness andrecognition that

• Pastoral areas require a different approach tohighland areas where sedentary farming practicespredominate, and pastoral areas are nothomogenous;

• The pastoral livelihood is influenced by internal andexternal social, cultural and political aspects, whichdiffer between and within regions;

• Mobility is an important strategy to adapt toincreasing resource variability;

• The existing natural resource base in a location(water and pasture) and the patterns wherebypeople use these resources are altered by waterdevelopment;

• Water provision in the rangelands should becoupled with other development interventions tosupport and improve livelihoods, includingimproved livestock marketing opportunities,veterinary services and rangeland rehabilitation;and

• Scientific and customary knowledge can combinethrough grassroots participation.

Other lessons which apply in the rangelands and inwater development more generally are:

• The critical importance of ‘software’ componentsfor the sustainability of water developments.Innovations include promoting community buy-into water development (either in cash or in kind);selecting water points for which constructionmaterials and spare parts (where needed) are

available at the local level; and increasing focusamong practitioners on training local artisans todecrease dependency on external support;

• The potential for rehabilitation of existing waterpoints to avoid the risks associated with newdevelopments, especially when project duration isshort (e.g. in emergency relief interventions); and

• The need to improve partnerships and linkagesbetween different projects and programmes tostreamline approaches to water development.

admitted there had been a lack of knowledge ofpastoralists’ behaviour and the drivers behindtraditional land use practices (World Bank, 2001).Oneof the only project components where headway wasmade was in water point construction – mainlyboreholes on ranches where water catchment wasrestricted and ponds in wet and dry season grazingareas. However, this took place top-down, with littleunderstanding of pastoral dynamics and the logicbehind pastoral natural resource managementstrategies. Construction of large ponds encouragedpermanent settlement and year-round usage ofsurrounding pasture, leading to overgrazing anderosion and opening space for competing modes ofproduction such as small-scale crop production(Gebre-Mariam, 1982). Insufficient recognition ofcustomary boundaries between grazing areas,relationships and rights defining use of these andwater’s importance in traditional regulation ofresource use led to frequent fighting around access towater points. Government retention of ownershipand management by local administrations resulted inpoorly controlled access (Sandford, 1983) andinadequate maintenance.

As Helland (1980) pointed out, although,technically, available pasture can easily be expanded bydigging ponds or sinking boreholes, making wateravailable freely strips existing social organisations ofmajor functions, which include regulating labourinputs, access to water and control over pasture. Hepredicted that weakening the social control ofexisting management systems in this way would leadto long-term degradation despite short-termexpansion of pastoral resources. Though factorsimplicated in rangeland deterioration are multiple andcomplex, Helland’s hypothesis of 30 years ago seemsto have come to bear.

3.3 Changes in thinking

Although early experiences in water developmenthad obvious negative impacts in the rangelands, theyalso provided a valuable opportunity for practitionersand researchers to learn what works and what doesnot in the pastoral context. A key lesson learnt fromthe RDP is that the ‘participation of intendedbeneficiaries in defining the project concept isfundamental’ (World Bank, 1991). Towards the end ofthe 1980s, the World Bank funded the Fourth

Livestock Project, the first real attempt at rangelanddevelopment, with an emphasis on pastoralparticipation to avoid the pitfalls of previousapproaches. While this attempt was hampered by thepolitical situation at the time and by the costs ofsustaining a bloated pastoral developmentbureaucracy (Hogg, 1993), approaches to participationcontinue to evolve: from end users simply expressingdemand for water points, to assuming a role inoperation and maintenance, to full involvement in allstages, including planning and construction.

The RDP and other such interventions across EastAfrica also prompted researchers to critically reviewthe underlying thinking for the conventional,commercial rangeland development approachespromoted by the World Bank and others. Thisincluded the tragedy of the commons theory, as wellas the assumption that rangelands constituteequilibrium grazing systems. Such systems arecommonly found in temperate regions, where relativeclimatic stability means availability of feed is arelatively predictable limiting factor on expansion ofthe livestock population. But in the non-equilibriumsystems of arid and semi-arid parts of Africa,‘extremely variable rainfall […] may have a muchstronger effect than animal numbers on vegetation’,requiring ‘management in the sense of adaptivecoping, rather than optimisation and control’ (Behnke,1994).

Water development in the rangelands is nowfocused more on protecting lives and livelihoods, andthe pastoral production system is a recognised formof land use mentioned explicitly in the currentgovernment’s Constitution, as well as in nationaldevelopment plans and programmes (e.g. the Plan forAccelerated and Sustained Development to End


Water development 1991–present 17

4.1The evolving landscape: actorsand interventions

This section provides a brief overview of more recentand ongoing shifts in water development approachesamong pastoralists, government (national and,increasingly, regional level) and development agenciesand NGOs. The private sector is also an increasinglyimportant player, for example in the development ofirrigation schemes which may be in tension withpastoral activities, but a dedicated focus on their roleis beyond the scope of this report.

4.2 Pastoralists

As noted, both government and donors have broadlyacknowledged the importance of participation ofpastoralists in water development. However, theextent to which participation occurs in practicevaries, and principles are by no means mainstreamedacross the country.

A starting point for greater participation whichdoes appear to have been widely adopted is forinterventions to be demand-led, at least in name. As water scarcity (and now pasture scarcity) is apersistent challenge, communities make appeals forwater to government and development agencies/NGOs, either to remedy water shortages or to openup new pasture. Direct appeals to developmentagencies and NGOs are possible where theseexternal actors have previous experience in an areaor with a particular community, and potentially avoidadministrative biases within local government (e.g. inJiiga woreda (district), Somali region, more waterpoints can be observed in areas which are home tothe majority of local administrative staff). Localbaseline surveys are sometimes, but not always,carried out. NGOs and development agencies canalso approach woreda offices, which are required toidentify PAs or kebeles where there is a need for

water, and organise community meetings to identifypriorities. Appeals made to district government are inany case often delegated to NGOs and developmentagencies for implementation. However, to date there is no structured way in which local pastoralcommunities can demand water development supportfrom local government or development agencies andNGOs, and sporadic expressions of demand generallyresult in a disjointed and uncoordinated response.

Furthermore, using a demand-led approach doesnot result in participation in and of itself: muchdeeper involvement is needed to ensure anappropriate and sustainable response. The influencepastoralists can exert on planning and siting of waterpoints differs depending on the entity constructing(and funding) the facility and the type constructed.Communities tend to lead decision-making on thetraditional structures they continue to developthemselves, such as ponds, springs and customarydeep wells. For structures funded and constructed bynon-pastoralists, especially those that are technicallymore complex (like boreholes), the extent to whichcommunities participate in decision-making varies.Many donor agencies that fund long-termdevelopment place participation in planning,management and maintenance high on their agenda.However, for many NGOs and local government

4 Water development, 1991–the present

development more broadly have become regionalresponsibilities (Figure 4). Nonetheless, federalministries, strategies, laws, policies and programmesremain important and provide a framework for theregional levels.

Ministries5

Three line ministries play a central role in guidingwater development and pastoral development in theregions: the Ministries of Water Resources (MoWR),Agriculture and Rural Development (MoARD) andFederal Affairs (MoFA). By extension, the Ministry ofFinance and Economic Development (MoFED) alsoinfluences planning. Table 1 indicates their nominalresponsibilities, which result in a number of potentialoverlaps:

• There is an overlap in responsibility for water-related issues between MoARD and MoWR. Bothare involved in irrigation development (MoWRdevelops large schemes, MoARD and the regions

develop small and medium schemes) and bothsupply water for livestock (MoARD explicitly forlivestock and MoWR for human as well as livestockconsumption).

• MoFA is responsible for pastoral livelihood issueswhich cut across sectors, including agriculture andwater. MoFA is therefore very involved in settingcross-sector priorities for these areas togetherwith relevant ministries.

• Even though planning and implementation areregional responsibilities, central ministries areheavily involved in planning and technical expertiseprovision at regional level in Afar and Somali, andalso in pastoral areas of Oromia and SNNPR.

However, there are also several notable efforts toenhance horizontal and vertical coordination:

• The Livestock Policy Forum under MoARD, withsupport from the Feinstein International Centre(FIC) at Tufts University, is a first-of-its-kindplatform which brings together 70 NGOrepresentatives, the private sector, bilateral andmultilateral donors, Ethiopian research institutions,


bureaus, participation is often symbolic. How muchcommunities contribute materially to theconstruction, operation and maintenance of waterpoints also varies, although cost recovery isincreasingly emphasised to encourage a sense ofownership of infrastructure. Eliciting payments forwater from local communities remains a considerablechallenge, whereas labour is provided more readily.

Whether organisations engage with communitiesdirectly or through the kebele, in both cases proposalsmust be submitted to regional bureaus for pastoraldevelopment or water, depending on the focus of theproject. Following implementation, facilities arehanded over either to the administrative authority orto Water User Associations (WUAs). Both NGOsand government increasingly encourage the setting upof WUAs to improve downward accountability and toenable communities to manage and operate localwater points, rather than the responsibility lyingsolely with government or with the customaryinstitutions that previously managed water resources

The above observations assume that non-pastoralists more than pastoralists determine thedegree of participation. However, more recently,pastoralists have formed pastoral associations todirectly and formally voice pastoral concerns togovernment (in Oromia region in 2006 and Afarregion in 2008 – the former having been formallyrecognised by regional government). There ispotential for such associations to organise andstreamline communication between localcommunities and government (as well as developmentagencies) and open up necessary discussions onpriority macro-level issues related to water andpasture at regional level.

4.3 Federal government

The EPRDF, which came to power in 1991, haspursued a decentralisation policy with the federalstate devolved along ethnic regional lines. In thiscontext, water development and pastoral


Sets national level policypriorities

EthiopianFederal

Government

Sets regional policy andplans in line with nationallevel responsibilities

RegionalGovernment (9 regions)

Zonaladministrations

Woreda/District

administrations

PA boundaries loosley basedon ethnic boundaries inpastoral areas

PeasantAssociations

(PAs)

Figure 4 Formal governance structure in Ethiopia

In the past 10 years, government and NGOs haveintroduced WUAs as a means for communities totake on the operation, management andmaintenance of water points instead of, or oftenalongside, government. WUAs generally have aboutseven members meant to represent a cross-sectionof water users in a given locality. Training isprovided to enable them to perform their duties,yet often more attention is given to establishing the

WUAs than ensuring their effective operation.WUAs therefore suffer from weak management,operation and maintenance capacity. Often, waterpoints are in practice managed by government, eventhough they are meant to be handed over toWUAs to manage. There is also limitedconsideration of the potential for synergies withcustomary water management systems.

WUAs in Ethiopia and relevance in the pastoral context

5. The structure and ministries’ responsibilities and nameschanged slightly in 2011 (after this report was written).

under the new Ensuring Equitable DevelopmentDirectorate, established in 2008, which hasdeveloped strategic goals and a roadmap to closethe development gap between regional states overthe next six years.

Policies, laws and strategiesA number of national development policies and lawshave implications for water development in pastoralregions, including the Poverty Reduction StrategyPaper (PRSP) (2001); PASDEP (2006) and the FederalRural Land Law 2005 (see Annex 1 for key details).These reflect evolutions in thinking. In the last 10years the discourse has changed dramatically, fromscant mention of pastoralism, and when mentionedcast in a negative light and in need of an overhaul toincrease production through technical fixes, tohighlighting mobility, the importance of customaryinstitutions and supporting livelihoods. But thesepolicies and laws also reflect the persistent paradoxat the heart of the policy direction regardingpastoralism: whereas in the short term governmentaims to support customary pastoral productionsystems, the long-term focus is on ‘voluntarily’ settlingpastoralists by providing livelihood diversificationopportunities, most notably fixed on irrigatedagriculture. Policy relating to water development mayexacerbate the sedentarising effect. For example,MoFA’s 2008 Draft Policy Statement for theSustainable Development of Pastoral and Agro-pastoral Areas of Ethiopia states that ‘in the long-term, the government envisions a stable pastoral andagro pastoral community through the facilitation ofgradual and voluntary transition towards permanentsettlement especially along the perennial river banks’(MoFA, 2008). However, many practitioners in thefield believe sedentarisation will gravely exacerbatethe challenges facing pastoral livelihoods. Tenuresecurity for pastoral communal rangelands also doesnot seem high on the national or regional agenda.

Where the documents refer to what can beregarded as best practice principles, there is rarely aclear indication of how these are to be implemented(e.g. increasing understanding of communal rangemanagement strategies, as emphasised in thePASDEP). With regard to participation, developmentof the PRSP and PASDEP involved consultation withpastoralists, but in both cases these do not appear tohave strongly influenced the final documents(Pastoralist Forum Ethiopia, 2009). In terms of the

Federal Rural Land Law, a principal criticism is thatthe emphasis on private landholdings disregards therationale of traditional communal landholding, whichgoes against the federal Constitution (Abdulahi andAdenew, 2007).

Programmes and projectsFederal ministries lead a number of projects andprogrammes involving water development inEthiopia’s pastoral regions, some of which addresswater specifically and others coupling waterdevelopment with broader pastoral development(rangeland rehabilitation, improved veterinaryservices, etc.). The past 10 years have seen significantand various departures from a ‘generic’ approach towater development, whereby local government orNGOs develop water points based on communityrequests, selecting technologies from a menu ofoptions and siting them according to hydro-geologicalcontext. The projects listed in Table 2 provide a rangeof examples, which integrate participation and otherkey issues (addressing other development needs,context specific planning, etc.) to different degrees.

The examples listed in Table 2 vary in terms offundamental assumptions about what constitutesappropriate water development in the rangelands,which suggests that ministries as well as regionaloffices work independently of one another with little


professional associations and governmentdepartments (Behnke et al., 2008). This introducesa more livelihoods-based approach to emergencyrelief, allowing members to share and learn fromfield experience and developing guidelines onemergency livestock interventions.

• MoFA chairs an inter-ministerial board which bringstogether representatives from the various lineministries to take stock of current activities in

pastoral regions and discuss planning. MoFA alsofacilitates the exchange of information betweenministries and the regions.

• Emerging regions are given support byneighbouring developed regions, coordinated andfacilitated by MoFA. Prior to 2008, support to Afarand Somali regions was provided by respectivecoordination departments under MoFA.Effectiveness has increased now they are subsumed


Table 2 National governmentprogrammes and projects including waterdevelopment components in pastoral

Lead ministry Programmes

MoWR The Water Sector DevelopmentProgramme (WSDP), including theWater Supply and SanitationDevelopment Programme(WSSDP) and IrrigationDevelopment Programme (IDP)

The Water Supply, Sanitation andHygiene Programme (WSSP)

The Universal Access Programme(UAP)

MoARD The PSNP Pastoral Areas Pilot(PSNP-PAP).

MoFA The PCDP

Table 1 Ministries involved in water and pastoral development in Ethiopia

Institution Mandate

MoWR Responsible for the country’s water supply and for planning and implementing large-scaleirrigation projects

Sets policy and coordinates planning and development related to water in Ethiopia Produces strategies and programmes, develops and implements water sector laws andregulations, conducts studies and research activities and provides technical support to regionalwater bureaus

Provides technical and institutional support to the emerging pastoral regions (Afar and Somali)to embed capacity at regional level to plan and implement projects

MoARD Plans, develops and manages the country’s agricultural resources and develops policies,strategies and programmes

Develops small- and medium-scale irrigation projects and is also responsible for the livestocksector, including water development, primarily via ponds and birkado to harvest rainwater

Through the Emerging Regions Development Coordination Office, provides coordinationsupport to small-scale agricultural activities in Afar and Somali regions, as well as technicalbackstopping for Oromia and SNNPR when needed

Oversees the Livestock Policy Forum

MoFA Hosts the Pastoral Areas Development Department (PADD), which provides development andcapacity-building support to emerging regions (Afar and Somali), assists in appropriatelystructuring government institutions from regional down to local level, drafts pastoral policiesand designs specific development programmes for pastoral regions informed by the country’srural development vision and strategies.

Facilitates vertical support between line ministries and regional governments, as well ashorizontal support between regional governments of developed regions and those of lessdeveloped (emerging) regions

Actively participates in preparing regional- down to woreda-level action plans, providestechnical backstopping and is directly involved in monitoring and evaluation of developmentactivities

MoFED Responsible for budget allocations to line ministries and also engaged in national policycoordination, therefore plays an implied role in sectoral activities

Source: Tekele (2005).

pastoral livelihood strategies and customary institu -tions, through tools such as natural resource mapping.Overall, federal government programmes show someevidence of considering and responding to theparticularities of water development in pastoral areas,such as the complex interrelation between water andland resources and the role of traditional manage -ment arrangements. There is also evidence of ongoinglearning: for example, Phase II of the PCDP emphasisesdevelopment of small-capacity water points that willnot encourage sedentarisation. Nonetheless, as Annex 2 indicates, there is often a gap between wellinformed and well-intentioned pro grammedocuments and implementation on the ground.

4.4 Regional government

BureausRegional governments have the autonomy to adaptnational plans and policies to suit regional contexts,and regional bureaus responsible for water,agriculture and rural and pastoral developmentprepare strategic plans touching on water. Forexample, in Afar region, the Bureau of WaterResources Development and the Bureau ofAgricultural and Rural Development are bothinvolved in planning and implementing waterdevelopment for productive use (both water supply –

which is also used by livestock – and small- tomedium-scale irrigation). In regions where pastoralistsrepresent only a portion of the total population,issues specific to pastoral livelihoods are handled byspecialised commissions/bureaus dedicated topastoral development (including water development,often a dominant feature). In Oromia region, thisfunction is performed by the Oromia PastoralDevelopment Commission (OPDC); the PastoralAffairs Bureau is the responsible entity in SNNPR. Inregions considered entirely pastoral, agricultural andrural development bureaus assume this responsibility– the Agriculture and Rural Development Bureau inAfar region and the Natural Resources, Livestock andCrop Bureau in Somali region.

Regional plans and policies often do not differsubstantially from national plans and policies, continueto emphasise agriculture and sedentary livelihoodsand generally perceive water supply and irrigationprojects to be designed primarily to serve people,even as they recognise that livestock are part andparcel of pastoral landscapes.

Policies and strategies Regional governments are responsible for draftingpolicies and preparing and implementing plans, butthese do not generally differ from the ‘template’policies, plans and strategies at federal level. Policiesrelated to land tenure are an exception: these are


coordination around water development issues andlimited sharing of best practice. This creates anenvironment where it is easy for inappropriate waterdevelopment to go unchecked. A short overview isprovided here, and further details are presented inAnnex 2.

A broad distinction can be made between MoWR-led programmes, which are aimed primarily at waterdevelopment, with differing degrees of recognition forpastoralists as a sub-category of users, and MoARDand MoFA programmes, which focus on pastoraldevelopment generally but in which waterdevelopment emerges as a major concern.

MoWR activities are marked by an emphasis onhardware, driven by ambitious targets embedded inthe flagship UAP, which aims to provide access to safewater for 98% of the rural population by 2012. Theparticular needs of pastoral areas are recognised tovarying degrees: the UAP refers to multiple uses ofwater (which could conceivably include livestock) butdoes not make separate reference to pastoral areas;the WSDP refers to water development for livestockin nomadic areas as a priority but has little specific

guidance; and special guidelines have been producedfor implementation of WSSP in pastoral areas.

Programmes led by MoFA and MoARD, meanwhile,have an explicit focus on pastoralists’ needs. ThePCDP includes innovations such as Mobile SupportTeams (MSTs), which are intended to facilitate thestrong participatory and community-driven ethos ofthe project, helping communities to identify andexpress their priorities. The PSNP-PAP targets foodsecurity and has a strong focus on understanding


According to the draft PSNP-PAP guidelines, simplemapping kits should be used with the planningteam, comprising the community leader at kebelelevel, four male-headed households representingdifferent social groups, four female-headedhouseholds representing different social groups,one youth representative, one religiousrepresentative and others as required by thecommunity. This involves:

• Marking obvious features on the ground, whichcould be pastoral unit boundaries, roads, hilltops, rivers, settlements, etc.;

• Adding more detail to the map, which includesthe location of different natural resources suchas pasture, water sources, agricultural land,forest, etc. and any areas where degradation isobserved. Features of traditional naturalresource management should be marked,including customary land divisions for grazingmanagement, customary water management

arrangements and patterns of mobility (of bothlocal and visiting communities);

• Identifying and discussing any problems that existin relation to mapped items, including naturalresources, traditional systems, mobility andconflict. Different maps can be produced tocapture different aspects, for example one fornatural resources, one for social services andone for mobility;

• Jointly prioritising issues to be addressed andidentifying potential solutions andcommunity/external (public works) actions torectify the problem.

Prioritised public works as identified through theabove planning process should then be presented,discussed, amended and approved in a generalassembly representing the wider community.Agreed-on public works should then be included inthe kebele plan which is submitted to woreda levelfor approval.

Source: MoARD (2007b).

Use of natural resource and socioeconomic mapping and analysis in the PSNP

4.5 NGOs and development agencies

Development vs. humanitarianinterventionsBesides government, the principal external actorsintervening in development in pastoral areas areNGOs and development agencies. These provideconstruction and rehabilitation of water points,develop small-scale irrigation and work on capacity-building and training. A broad distinction betweeninterventions aiming at long-term development andthose of a humanitarian or emergency responsenature (Table 3) persists. Given the short-term natureof humanitarian interventions, practitioners tendtowards top-down, technical responses at theexpense of planning, participation and sustainability.Limited communication or collaboration betweenemergency response and development donors andpractitioners also frustrates ambitions for longer-term development. However, a few examples oflivelihoods-based emergency interventions arecurrently underway in Ethiopia (e.g. USAID’s PLI andthe European Commission (EC)’s Humanitarian AidDepartment (ECHO)’s Regional Drought Decision(RDD)), suggesting the beginnings of a trend amongcertain donors towards ensuring communityresilience to shock rather than simply providingemergency relief. Coordination and communicationbetween development-oriented NGOs anddevelopment agencies could also be improved, asindividual organisations usually work in isolation from

government and one another. Just as for government,approaches run the gamut from conventionaltechnocratic methods to those which are highlyparticipatory and location-specific. Incoherence inapproach to water development and weak linkagesbetween practitioners creates an environment whereit is easy for inappropriate and poor quality waterdevelopment to go unchecked.

Highlighted programmes and projectsThis section picks out certain programmes andprojects being undertaken by development agenciesand NGOs, primarily focussing on innovations beingdeveloped. While it is safe to assume that challengesdo exist for these projects and programmes as well,the author did not have relevant documentationavailable at the time of writing. Projects include theUSAID-funded PLI, the ECHO-funded Regional


prepared at regional level by agricultural and ruraldevelopment bureaus and have important implicationsfor the pastoral way of life, given reliance oncommunal lands. Regional-level policies related toland tenure in the focus regions include (Abdulahi andAdenew, 2007)

• Afar: The Afar draft Rural Land Administration andUse Proclamation (2009) recognises, as per theConstitution, that pastoralists have the right to theuse of grazing land. Further, traditional communalgrazing land cannot be privatised. This seems toextend exclusive rights to pastoralists over the useof communal rangelands. However, theproclamation also says that land is ultimatelyowned by the state and that communal land can beprivatised and/or given to investors whenconsidered appropriate and with the consensus oflocal communities.

• Oromia: The Oromia Rural Land Use andAdministration Proclamation (2007) largelyexcludes pastoralists and does not recognisecommunal ownership. The term ‘possession’ is usedin such a way as to focus on individual ownership.

• SNNPR: The SNNPR Rural Land Administrationand Utilisation Proclamation (2007) recognises theexistence of communal land and specifies how itshould be registered, with some provisions toprotect pastoralists.

• Somali: The regional government is currently inthe process of drafting a new Land UseProclamation.

In terms of relevant regional strategies, Oromiaregional government is leading the four regionsconsidered in this study, with at least some attentionto the particular challenges encountered in thelowlands evident in its overall growth anddevelopment planning. The five-year Oromia GrowthCorridors Plan (OCGP) was prepared in 2006 as aholistic regional development effort using water as anentry point. By tapping ‘permanent’ groundwater withdeep wells and developing surface water harvesting,the OGCP aims to open up possibilities for multipleland uses, including livestock production as well asirrigation. An important underlying driver indevelopment of the OGCP was a desire to explorethe potential for resettlement from theoverpopulated and degraded highlands.

A key feature is the pioneering use of land use

planning to inform decision-making around the mostappropriate use of different areas (utilising semi-detailed soil maps at district level), for example cashfood crops, agro-industrial development, livestockproduction and resettlement (OWWDSE, 2008).Community consultations are held to discuss theplans, from which area development programmes aredrafted. Land use planning for Borana zone revealedthat two of three basins included, where dry seasongrazing areas are vital for pastoral livelihoods, aremost suited for livestock production – this is possiblythe first time a government programme hasrecognised that livestock production is more suitablethan crop production in certain areas (TayeAlemayehu,6 personal communication).

However, the development model for the OCGPstill aims for ‘voluntary’ settlement of pastoralists inthe long term. A total of 2,000km of planned waterpipeline to transport water from boreholes tosupport multiple land uses, coupled with thedelineation of livelihood zones with boundaries thatare likely to harden over time, will certainlycontribute to curtailed mobility. The OGCP alsoemphasises irrigation, including the setting aside of36,000 ha for the Fentale I and II irrigation schemes,with the aim of shifting Kerrayu and Itu pastoralistsaway from dependence on ‘unsustainable’ pastoralproduction. A need for revision of pastoral landholding systems has been identified, on the groundsthat planned multiple uses of lowlands will be beyondthe management capacity of traditional pastoralinstitutions (Taye Alemayehu, personalcommunication, 2009). The pilot plan also makesexplicit reference to the tragedy of the commons,especially with regard to ‘herd management vis-à-visthe carrying capacity of the pastureland’ (OWWDSE,2009). However, the OGCP aims to succeed whereprevious projects promoting settled forms oflivestock production have failed, by providingtransport, communication, health, education andmarket information and services besides water.

This model is currently being imported by Somaliand Amhara regions. SNNPR regional administrationhas also expressed interest in adopting such a model(Kaidaki Gezahegn,7 personal communication).


6. Deputy General Manager of the Oromia Water Works Designand Supervision Enterprise (OWWDSE).7. Bureau Head, Pastoral Affairs Bureau.

Table 3 Water development in humanitarian response and development scenarios

Type Duration Activities Push factors Major donors

Emergencyresponse

Typically 3–6 months

Water trucking

Rehabilitation of water points

Construction of water points

Increased incidence of droughtand floods and weakenedcapacity to cope, aggravated bypoverty and conflict, firmlyentrenching the need forreactive emergency response

Office of US ForeignDisaster Assistance(OFDA), Office for theCoordination ofHumanitarian Affairs(OCHA)

Development A year or more

Rehabilitation of water points

Construction of water points

Increased awareness that rootcauses of vulnerability must beaddressed and adaptive capacityincreased to decrease the needfor, and dependence on,emergency response

USAID, EuropeanUnion (EU), UNDevelopmentProgramme (UNDP)

programme (18 months), emphasis is placed on thestrategic distribution of water points to open upexisting pasture, as opposed to rehabilitating heavilydegraded areas. In order to correctly distance andplace water points, focus is placed on mappingexisting water infrastructure as well as the physicalattributes of an area. The mid-term evaluation of theRDPP recommended the mapping techniques beapplied across drought preparedness activities in theHorn of Africa region (ibid.). However, it alsoobserved that

• Opening up pasture by strategically constructingwater points carries the risk of permanentsettlement and the conversion of rangelands forfarming purposes, and therefore must be plannedvery carefully.

• Very little can be said to date about the direct andindirect impacts of water developments onlivelihoods, as impacts on livelihoods are notmonitored.

• A large number of water points are non-functional.For example, 60% of Somali region’s birkado aredamaged and unused, calling into question thebuilding of new birkado versus rehabilitatingexisting structures.

• Constructing water pans by mechanical means tocollect surface water, as practised in the RDPP, iscostly and, when not done properly, leads tostructural damage.

• WUAs, which require cash contributions, especiallyfor motorised systems, are very oftenunsustainable; organisation of water pointmanagement should be decided by communitiesthemselves if management is to be sustainable.

• External support should be limited to technicalinput and the provision of financial facilities tocover costs exceeding the immediate capacity ofthe community.

• Water point designs are often inappropriate and ofpoor quality, suggesting a lack of technical skill.Furthermore, standard technical designs are rarelyadapted or adjusted to suit the local context.

The GWI, initiated in 2007 and funded by theHoward G. Buffet Foundation, focuses specifically onwater development as a means of improving pastorallivelihoods. The GWI consortium in Ethiopia is activein the Borana zone of Oromia region11 and is led byCARE International, a partner supporting the

production of this review. Like the PLI and the ECHOprogramme, the GWI brings together NGOs toharmonise approaches and increase effectiveness. Theproject aims to ensure that vulnerable populationshave reliable access to clean water withoutcompromising dignity, rights, culture and the naturalenvironment (GWI, 2008). The GWI emphasisescapacity-building and the ‘software’ aspects of waterschemes, and promotes water for multiple uses(human consumption, livestock and small-scaleirrigation). In its first phase, the project concentratedon rehabilitating existing water points (wells, ponds,boreholes, etc.); construction of new schemes wasalso envisaged up to 2011. CARE, under the GWI, hasdeveloped a how-to guide for practitioners torecognise and avoid water-triggered conflict in waterdevelopment planning (Demeke, 2008), and anIntegrated Water Resource Management (IWRM)strategy has been developed (Pankhurst, 2009).

As recommended by the strategy, CARE andprogramme partners have established and aresupporting certain key structures at woreda level andbelow, to facilitate participatory and context-appropriate planning and monitoring and to enableexchange of learning. A woreda developmentcoordination committee includes communityrepresentatives (including representatives ofcustomary institutions and women), representativesfrom local government sector offices and NGOsworking locally. This has actively participated in andfacilitated participatory monitoring sessions to reviewimplementation during the pilot phase of the GWIand facilitated the identification and prioritisation ofinterventions and target groups for the longer-termportion of the GWI initiative. This latter role has alsobeen fulfilled by the community-based participatorymonitoring group, established to ensurerepresentative participation of all social groups withina community in planning and monitoring, comprisinglocal leaders, leaders of customary pastoralinstitutions, elders and women. The woreda learningalliance includes NGOs, community groups and localgovernment. This has held three fora to review theexperiences and best practice of stakeholders.Through these, partners have harmonised programme


Drought Preparedness Programme (RDPP) and theGWI, funded by the Howard G. Buffet Foundation. Inaddition, a range of NGOs utilise a number ofinnovative approaches, such as geographic informationsystem (GIS) mapping and local developmentcommittees (LDCs), which bring together traditionalinstitutions with local government.

The PLI began in 2005 and is implemented by aconsortium of international and local NGOs8

(including two of the partners supporting this study)in Afar, Oromia (Borana) and Somali regions. Theprogramme is currently in its second phase, PLI II,which runs from 2009 to 2013. It reflects the newemphasis of the donor, USAID, on taking a livelihoods-based approach to emergency interventions. Waterdevelopment is undertaken within a broaderlandscape context, recognising the intricaterelationship between water, pasture and pastoralmobility and the risks of water-related environmentaldegradation and conflict. Participatory naturalresource mapping is used so as to benefit frompastoralists’ detailed knowledge of the extent andquality of local rangeland resources, users of theseresources and patterns of use. The maadda is used asthe basis. Customary institutions and mobilitypatterns, as well as physical entities such as pastureand water resources, are identified using communityfeedback. Following this, problems related to naturalresources are identified by communities and KebeleAssociations officials (lowest level of administration)(who are closely involved and trained to use thetool), and a community action plan is prepared.Participatory resource mapping is currently beingexplored for the dheedha level, to better understandbroader mobility patterns which can affect and beaffected by water development interventions.

New water points are constructed under the PLI,but a strong emphasis is put on rehabilitating existingwater points, as well as training and contracting localmasons to carry out this task. The PLI also focuses onother development needs in the rangelands, includingveterinary health and access to markets. Important

lessons arising from the programme include thefollowing:

• Community contributions are easier to obtainwhere customary institutions prioritise theintervention, organise the labour and carry out thework.9

• Customary institutions are capable of assumingresponsibility for maintenance and already managea large number of traditional water points.

• Harmonisation between NGOs, and withgovernment, is possible through regularcommunication and careful coordination.Programme staff work closely with woreda WaterResource Development Offices to identify waterpoints in need of rehabilitation and organiseworkshops to bring together NGOs, grassrootscommunity groups and local government. TuftsUniversity organises regional technicalcoordination meetings in Afar and Oromia as forafor consortium members to inform localgovernment on project progress and to harmonisepractice and approach (CARE Ethiopia, 2008).Close linkages with the Livestock Policy Forumunder MoARD have been an effective way for theproject to communicate lessons learnt in the fieldfor the benefit of a wide audience.

• The PLI is the first project in the rangeland togauge the impact of interventions on livelihoods,through the use of participatory impactassessments pioneered by Tufts University.

The RDPP, begun in 2007, is another example of anemergency intervention with a livelihoods emphasis inthe rangelands. Like the PLI, it brings disparate actorstogether to work towards a common goal. The Foodand Agriculture Organization (FAO) coordinates theprogramme, which is implemented by numerousdevelopment agencies and NGOs.10 Access to waterfor humans and livestock is a prominent theme, withpriority given to traditional, affordable technologiesfamiliar at the local level (Schimann and Philpott,2007). However, given the limited timeframe of the


8. NGO partners in Phase I included SC-US, Save the ChildrenUK, the International Rescue Committee (IRC), AgriculturalCooperative Development International/Volunteers in OverseasCooperative Assistance, the Global Livestock CollaborativeResearch Support Programme under the Pastoral RiskManagement project, Tufts University, CARE International, the USForest Service and Action for Development.

9. Community contributions were not initially required by SC-USbut were introduced following a review of the programme in Afarregion (CARE Ethiopia, 2008).10. ECHO partners include DanChurchAid , Save the ChildrenUK, Action Contre La Faime, Vétérinaires Sans Frontières, FARMAFRICA, Cooperazione Italiana, Caritas/Hararghe CatholicSecretaria, Cordaid and Oxfam GB.

11. The GWI is also active in the Rift Valley, but this is not apastoral area and therefore is outside the scope of this report.The GWI consortium in Ethiopia comprises CARE International,Oxfam US and Catholic Relief Services along with local EthiopianNGOs.


knowledge and finding avenues of merging modernand traditional methods in ways which empowercommunities, avoid altering traditional wellmanagement systems and ensure the enhancedinvolvement of women. Management groups receivedtraining on improved water and sanitation practicesand on operation, management and maintenance ofthe systems developed.

Innovative approaches by local NGOs: A decadeago, Pastoralist Concern Association Ethiopia (PCAE)introduced the concept of LDCs in Somali region.These are based on traditional institutional structuresand are chaired by local elders, but also bring in localgovernment for the purpose of dialogue andconsensus-building. Clan or sub-clan heads sit on thecommittee to ensure representation from differentallegiances and interests. Once the LDC is formed, amapping exercise takes place which identifies areaswith water potential and sets criteria for water pointsite selection. However, according to PCAE, theapproach is not without challenges, for examplewhere community decisions are at odds with thewishes of local administrations (Abdida’ad Ibrahim,12

personal communication).

The German Agency for International Cooperation(GIZ) and SOS Sahel in Ethiopia have pioneeredmapping approaches to better understand thelocation and relation of physical resources (includingwater, pasture and other land), settlements andinfrastructure. Lay Volunteers InternationalAssociation has developed a GIS-based atlas for partsof Borana in Oromia region, which identifies existingwater resources, water points and pasture. FAO hasalso produced maps on behalf of the ECHO RDDconsortium, which identify different land uses, surfaceand groundwater resources, different types of waterpoints, towns, roads and other features. The IRCconducts comprehensive surveys of all waterdevelopments (and functionality) in its areas of work,such as in Mieso, Daro Lebu and Boke woredas inOromia region. Such work appears to be influencinggovernment, as indicated by the Oromia regionalgovernment’s promotion of land use maps to guidedevelopment decision-making for the region. Regionalgovernment in Somali region has also recently puttogether a comprehensive assessment of all existingwater infrastructure.

implementation approaches and identified gaps to beaddressed, including the need for wider coordinationamong stakeholders in the programme area.

The strategy also recommends that non-controversial interventions be prioritised, such aswater point rehabilitation, rather than new waterpoints such as permanent or deep wells and largecapacity water points, which can affect mobility. As aresult, the programme focuses mainly on upgrading orrehabilitating existing permanent and temporarywater supply sources, with the aim of improvingwater quality and access and reducing the time andlabour required to collect water from source. TheCARE team aims to do this based on the decision ofcustomary water resource management groups. Thepilot and long-term programme includes

• Rehabilitation/upgrading of five ponds, fourmalfunctioning motorised water supply sources andthree traditional wells (increasing water availability,efficiency, water point protection and ease ofaccess);

• Expansion of two already established groundwatersupply systems to facilitate access by additionalusers;

• New developments (deep wells and/or surfacewater harvesting systems) in areas where there isno permanent water sources within a shortdistance, including two hand-dug shallow waterwells and one rock catchment for rainwaterharvesting; one new deep well is planned, informedby in-depth technical and socioeconomicconsiderations to identify and mitigate impacts onmobility and livelihoods; and

• Supplementary water supply technologies such asten rainwater harvesting systems constructedacross five schools.

In keeping with the strategy’s recommendation toanalyse equity of access to water, with particularconsideration of women’s concerns and needs, CAREhas developed a seasonal calendar through aparticipatory process which identifies basicinformation on trade, division of labour and access toresources by different gender groups disaggregated byage and sex.

CARE has also supported the establishment ofcommunity-based groups to manage water supply andsanitation facilities, once they are developed. Thesehave a special focus on building on existing customary


12. Executive Director, PCAE.

5.1 Good practice: the practitioners’perspective

The over 50 interviews held in the course of thisstudy led to the identification of a set of ‘goodpractice’ principles, on which there was broadagreement (Table 4).

Despite widespread agreement on these principles,it should be noted that very little has been done tosystematically assess the impacts of waterdevelopment on livelihoods in the rangelands.Furthermore, as the examples in Section 4 show,good practice is achieved only in a few instances.Much that occurs in the water development sector

Lessons learnt and ways forward 31

5 Lessons learnt and ways forward

Table 4 ‘Good practice’ principles for water development in pastoral areas

Issue Good practice principle

Understand the rangeland context foreffective planning

Understand the broader natural resource base and grazing patterns beforeplanning and constructing water points – making water development partand parcel of natural resource management and recognising that wateravailability and use affect the way other natural resources are used andmanaged

Understand local contexts and dynamics, including social, political andcultural aspects in a given location

Identify existing water points and explore options for rehabilitation toimprove what is already there

Rehabilitate and developwater points with sensitivityto rangeland dynamics andpastoralists’ needs

In rangelands, select technologies that do not encourage settlement andadequately space points to alleviate pressure on any single water point

Couple water development with other pastoral development interventions(e.g. access to markets, veterinary health, rangeland rehabilitation)

Promote meaningful engagement with water users in the planning andimplementation phase of any interventions and promote the use ofparticipatory/consultative methods, avoiding reliance on external agents

Secure sustainabilitythrough capacity-building,user contributions and useof customary institutionsand practices

Strengthen the management, operation and maintenance capacity of waterusers and select technologies for which construction materials and spareparts are locally available

Understand existing traditional water management systems and strengthencustomary institutions, building on their know-how for water schememanagement

Promote user buy-in and commitment by requiring a labour/cashcontribution to construct water points

coordination. There is also interest amonghumanitarian donors in improving the effectiveness ofemergency interventions by tapping into theexperience of development programmes – evidencedby the impact assessments produced under USAID’sPLI to help gauge the effect of emergency relief onlivelihoods and long-term development, identifyweaknesses and improve practice.

There is a wide range of guidelines for waterdevelopment, participatory mapping and conflict-sensitive planning in Ethiopia and the wider region(Annex 1). These could provide a foundation fordeveloping a specific set of guidelines on water forproductive use in pastoral regions. The existence of

multiple coordination groups concerned withdevelopment and development-oriented emergencyrelief in pastoral areas serves as a good opportunityto mainstream developed guidelines into practice.Section 5.3 presents a preliminary set of these, whichcould inform the development of comprehensiveguidelines.

Good practice unpacked Understand the rangeland context for effective planningThe first set of ‘good practice’ principles (Table 4)relate to understanding context. The irony ofdeveloping water to satisfy demand is that, as much asit can alleviate immediate pressures in the short term,it can potentially bring with it lasting and seriousnegative impacts, when local needs, land use patternsand ecological functions are not sufficiently


(in pastoral areas as well as elsewhere) continues tofollow business as usual based on a technocraticmodel, with little community participation and littleemphasis on issues beyond putting in place physicalinfrastructure. The following section reviews the mainunderlying challenges, as well as expanding on theabove principles.

5.2 Unpacking the challenges andreviewing successes

Fragmentation: an overarchingobstacle to good practiceAn overarching problem, not necessarily picked up onby the principles in Table 4, is fragmentation ofresponsibilities and a lack of overarchingcoordination, which impedes uptake of good practice.This leads to water interventions that are sectorallydriven, either for domestic consumption, livestock useor agriculture. But pastoralists use water for multiplepurposes, regardless of the intended purpose of thewater point. This is beginning to be recognised bymany practitioners, who now often construct troughsintended for livestock watering attached to waterpoints intended for domestic use. Multiple use ofwater is also beginning to be recognised in federalplans and policies, such as the PASDEP and UAP. InOromia region, steps are being taken to address thesectoral disconnect (see box). However, no commonguidelines exist for the development of water forproductive use in the pastoral context.

Meanwhile, a huge diversity of approaches, toolsand technologies persists between the differentactors. The sheer number of NGOs and developmentagencies working on water development in pastoralareas is shown in Figure 5. Between humanitarian anddevelopment practitioners, the diversity arguablyextends to a fundamental difference in aims.

This lack of coordination is not lost on thegovernment and the various development andhumanitarian assistance actors in Ethiopia. Manycoordination groups, fora and consortia have beenestablished to promote communication and commonapproaches on a wide array of issues (Table 5).However, water issues are then fragmented betweendifferent coordination groups, which are eitherproject-specific or related to particular themes suchas emergency relief or agriculture/food security, and

are all led by different agencies. The sheer number ofcoordination groups and fora suggests there is muchcoordination but little harmonisation. Where water isa central topic (such as in coordination fora on accessto safe drinking water), discussions concentrate onwater for human use rather than water for livestockor agriculture.

Partnerships and dialogue between differentstakeholders are beginning to emerge outside theseformal fora, indicating cross-fertilisation of ideas andapproaches between actors. The PSNP is activelypromoting knowledge-sharing and partnerships withNGOs to address capacity shortages within govern -ment. Furthermore, at regional level, the OGCPinvites NGOs and donors to participate in imple -menta tion, and regional implementers are learningfrom NGO experiences in Borana, such as the PLI’sexperience with controlled burning of the rangelands.

On the humanitarian front, dialogue between majorhumanitarian donors such as the HumanitarianResponse Fund (HRF) under OCHA and OFDAunder USAID is occurring for the first time, inacknowledgement of the need for better


Tigray

Eritrea

Sudan

Somalia

Kenya

Uganda

Djibouti

Amhara

BenishangulGumuz

Gambella

SNNPR

Oromiya

Afar

Dire Dawa

Somali

HarariAddis Ababa

AFDADRACatholic Relief ServiceEPARDA Ethiopian Pastoralist Research

and Development AssociationEthiopian Catholic ChurchEthiopian Evangelical ChurchFarm AfricaGOALIRCNorwegian Church AidORDASamaritan's PurseSIM Society for International MachineryUNICEFWELTHUNGERHILFE

Action for DevelopmentADRACARECCFCDIChristian AidCOOPICatholic Agency for Overseas

DevelopmentCISPCRSDevelopment FundEngage New Foundation-ETHGOALHararghe Catholic SecretariatIRC

Lutheran World FederationMercy CorpsMerlinNetherland Development

OrganizationsNorwegian Church AidORDAOromo Self Help OrganizationOxfam-USPRO PRIDESC-USTROCAIREUNICEFWELTHUNGERHILFEWVEWVI

ACFADRACARECCMCRS Catholic Relief Services-EthiopiaCHFCONCERNCOOPIDevelopment FundHararghe Catholic SecretariatIntermon OXFAMIRCIslamic ReliefLVIAMercy CorpsNorwegian Church AidORDAOxfam-GBOxfam-InternationalPCAE Pastoral Concern Association

EthiopiaSamaritan's PurseSave the Rural SocietySC-UKSC-USUNICEFZOA Refugee Care

N

Regions with large pastoral areas

International boundary

Regional boundary

Disclaimer:The designations employed and the presentation of material on this map do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

0 50 100 200 300 km

APDCAREDevelopment FundFarm AfricaFAOGudina Tumsa FoundationIslamic ReliefLutheran World FederationOxfam InternationalORDASC-NorwaySC-UKSC-USUNICEFWELTHUNGERHILFEWVE

Figure 5 NGOs and development organisations working (in 2009) on water development in pastoral areas of Ethiopia*Source: OCHA (2009).

Platform for integrated waterdevelopment in Oromia region

The OPDC implements projects focused onpastoral livelihoods, often with water deliverycomponents, whereas water and agriculturesectoral bureaus plan and implement watersupply and irrigation projects in both pastoraland highland regions. In 2009, a structuralamendment was made at regional level to allowfor better coordination between the OPDC andsectoral bureaus. A new board was created atthe behest of the regional president and cabinet,to be hosted by the OPDC and to ensure thatthe strategies and interventions of sectoralbureaus are better suited to the pastoralcontext. Sectoral bureau representatives mustpresent their intended development plans forpastoral areas during board meetings, and thetask of the OPDC is to ensure these considerthe realities in the region’s lowlands.Source: Abebe Wolde,13 personal communication.

13. OPDC Deputy Commissioner.

* Institutions represented here work on water supply orirrigation or both in the capacity of relief or long termdevelopment. Data compiled from OCHA 3W as well as othersources.

uses through a comprehensive land use mapping andplanning exercise.

A particularly contentious issue at the intersectionof natural and social, economic and political issues isthe tension between settled agriculture (particularlyirrigation) and ‘mobile livelihoods’ such aspastoralism. To enable understanding on the topic ofwater use for irrigation in the Ethiopian context, aseparate undertaking is recommended on how theexpansion of irrigated agriculture will enhance orhandicap local livelihoods. Detailed economic analysisis required to determine whether it is moreprofitable as well as socially beneficial, for the stateand for local people, to develop land for irrigation, tomaintain and improve rangelands for pastorallivestock production or to explore a combination ofthe two. Having said this, several authors argue thatregardless of the profits to be had from farming, ‘theeconomic losses and social costs of declining pastoral production often outweigh it’ (Scott-Villiers,2006)16. This together with documented experiencewhich shows that lowlands require a differentapproach to water development than agriculturalareas where rainfall is less spatially and temporallyvariable.

Pre-existing water developments are also animportant part of the context. Ethiopia is still litteredwith non-functional and disused water points, andconflict, settlement and environmental degradation

are still evident around them. This trend is not limitedto SNNPR but is observed across regions, forexample 60% of Somali Region’s birkado are damagedand unused (Schimann and Philpott, 2007). In Oromia,a recent survey conducted by the IRC shows that, ofthe 14 boreholes in Daro Lebu woreda in 2005, 12were functional and 2 non-functional. Of theadditional 15 boreholes constructed in the sameworeda since 2005, 7 are non-functional and 8 arefunctional (Figure 6).

Extremely ambitious water development targetsfor water supply, as outlined in the UAP, the PASDEPand the WSDP (Section 4.3), based in part on meetingMillennium Development Goal (MDG) targets, arelikely to see continued heavy emphasis oninfrastructure development at the expense ofsustainability and appropriateness. The policyemphasis on outputs is shared by project reportingsystems, which currently focus on reporting numbersof schemes built at the expense of measuring qualityor effectiveness. For example, one report whichstates that ’10 wells were improved’ does not sayanything about accessibility, availability, affordability,quality and acceptance – the five standard indicatorsof service provision (MoARD, 2008).

In this light, it is especially important to considerthe potential for rehabilitating existing facilities, ratherthan developing yet more new ones without sufficientresourcing to ensure their sustainability. The currentlack of coherence in approach is recognised by all


considered. It can potentially undermine rather thanpromote development and sustainable livelihoods.

Water in pastoral regions is part of the broadernatural resource base, and decisions related to wateramong pastoralists are de facto decisions related topasture. Pastoralism as a livelihood is a highly evolvedeconomic, social, cultural and political response to alandscape where natural resources are variable inspace and time. Insufficient attention to howpastoralists use and manage natural resources withinthis broader livelihood context, and lack of acoherent and streamlined approach to waterdevelopment, often results in water interventionswhich contribute to the disruption of elaborate andhighly developed natural resource managementsystems, unsustainable land use and heightenedpotential for conflict.

Water development is still largely worked on as astandalone issue divorced from broader naturalresource management and broader development.Some actors have begun to address this disconnect.The government’s PSNP aims to understandcustomary natural resource use and the type andextent of different natural resources in specific areas,including degraded landscapes, as well as existingcustomary resource management systems. It does sothrough the use of participatory natural resourcemapping, which allows practitioners to get a feel forlocal needs and concerns. The PLI uses a similarapproach, and the OGCP is working to increaseunderstanding of existing natural resources and land


Table 5 Selected coordination efforts relevant to water and pastoral development in

Focus Fora

Emergency relief Overall coordination of emergency interventions led by OCHA

Coordination forum for all PLI projects (led by Tufts University)*

Coordination forum for all ECHO RDPP projects (led by FAO)*

*These have joined, and the joint coordination group is now led by regional agricultural bureaus.

Development Coordination group for the Agricultural Growth Programme under theRural Economic Development and Food Security subgroup of the DonorAssistance Group, led by the World Bank. A livestock/pastoral workingsubgroup has been formed by MoARD, USAID, FAO, Tufts University and theEC to promote livestock production as a vehicle for agricultural growth

The Livestock Policy Forum

Coordination group for the PCDP, led by the World Bank

Coordination group for the PSNP, led by the World Bank with a taskforcefor pastoral areas

Natural resource management

Initially supported under the ELSE/ELMT programme, the Natural ResourceManagement Technical Working Group, currently housed in SC-US, is madeup of members from NGOs, government (federal, regional and local), donorsand development agencies. It provides a forum for information andexperience exchange, including, potentially, on water. Currently, sub-groupsare being established at regional and/or zonal levels

Regions/zones Multiple theme-based coordination groups, led by regional or zonalgovernment.

Source: Gijs Van’t Klooster14 and Fiona Flintan15 (personal communication, 2009).

14. FAO.15. ELSE/ELMT and Natural Resource Management TechnicalWorking Group.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Non-functionalFunctional

Built post-2005(2009 survey)

Built pre-2005(2005 survey)

Num

ber

of b

ore

hole

s

Figure 6 Functionality of boreholes in Daro Lebu woreda,Oromia region Source: in-house surveys conducted by IRCin 2005 and 2009

16. The Reinforcement of Pastoral Civil Society in Africa project isunderway to encourage fairer, more balanced treatment ofpastoralism as an important contributor to development and theeconomy, targeting government partners and civil society up to2011, and led by the Feinstein International Center (TuftsUniversity) in partnership with the International Institute forEnvironment and Development (IIED).

representative of the different social, livelihood,wealth, age, religious and gender groups.

• Lack of clarity over what ‘participation’ entails(how and to what extent different interests are tobe involved) means multiple approaches toincreasing participation, with little dialogue to shareexperience on what does and does not work.

• Increased involvement of communities inmanagement and maintenance has not beenmatched by increased involvement in planning,making it harder to secure buy-in and increasingthe risk of disrupting social and ecological patterns.

• Limited capacity-building for communities andgroups acting on their behalf (e.g. WUAs)undermines attempts to involve and transferownership. Indicators focus on physicalinterventions, with little understanding of how tomeasure capacities built.

By prioritising communities and individualsexpressing their own concerns, ambitions and needs,water may emerge as only one development priorityamong several in the rangelands. Consultation for thePCDP found water and pasture development weretop priorities for pastoralists; for agro-pastoralists(who more often have secure access to water), healthposts and schools were more often cited as priorities(Assaye Legesse,17 personal communication). TheOGCP recognises that an integrated developmentapproach which addresses other crucial needs such asaccess to markets and health facilities, among otherservices, is indispensable if livelihoods are to beprotected and improved. A second priority forinterventions sensitive to rangeland dynamics istherefore to consider the development needs ofdifferent stakeholders, potentially coupling water

development with other pastoral developmentinterventions (e.g. access to markets, veterinaryhealth, rangeland rehabilitation).

The third priority in this regard is a thoroughunderstanding of context to select and place waterpoints so they do not encourage settlement oroveruse, either of water or pasture. Very little hasbeen done to date to systematically track impacts ofwater development on livelihoods, but trial and errorover many years has created more awareness on thenegative impacts of poorly planned waterinterventions, especially in terms of large-capacity orpermanent water points. In Ethiopia, researchers haveidentified negative consequences related to size andcapacity of water points since the 1980s, mostnotably since the RDP of the late 1970s. Theseinclude settlement around water points; appearanceof competing land uses, such as agriculture inrangeland areas; other forms of privatisation, such asfencing portions of the rangelands for private use(seen by some as an attempt to buffer the rangelandsagainst conversion for crop production);overconcentration of livestock around water points;range degradation; excessive and uncontrolled use ofwater infrastructure leading to breakage and watershortages; deforestation for charcoal production;reduction of available palatable perennial grass; over-abstraction and lowering of the water table;salinisation and salt-water intrusion; and conflict overthe control of water points (Gomes, 2006).

There is increasing recognition of theseimplications by government, donors, NGOs andpastoral communities themselves. The GWI’s recentlydeveloped IWRM strategy for Borana zone notes thatpermanent water points constructed in therangelands are likely to affect mobility (Pankhurst,2009), originally pointing to deep wells andpermanent ponds but now also including birkado.Originally intended as temporary water catchments,birkado now often function as year-round watersources thanks to continuous refilling via watertrucking, especially in Somali region (Beruk Yemane18

and Ced Hesse,19 personal communications). Eventhough much birkado construction was (and is)instigated by pastoralists, pastoralists themselves havebecome more aware of their negative impacts and


actors as an impediment to sustainable developmentin the rangelands. However, some donors,development organisations and governmentprogrammes (such as the PCDP) are beginning torehabilitate existing water points as a cost-effectivemeans of availing water, and also as a way to avoiddisrupting mobility patterns and disagreement overnew water points.

Rehabilitate and develop water pointswith sensitivity to rangeland dynamics andpastoralists’ needsWith a proper understanding of context, it is thennecessary to design and implement waterdevelopment interventions so the needs ofpastoralists (and other stakeholders) are met, withoutdisturbing the complex environmental, social andeconomic dynamics of the rangelands (Table 4). A firstfundamental principle is to ensure water users areengaged meaningfully from the early planning stages.The WSDP highlights that ‘the most important policyand regulatory interventions in terms of their

negative impacts on the environment were thoseimpositions which increasingly and cumulativelyeroded the rights of individuals and communities touse and manage their own resources’ (MoWR, 2002).Grassroots participation is clearly enshrined inEthiopia’s Constitution, and since 1991 an increasingemphasis on community participation has beenobserved in policies, strategies and programmesrelating to water development in pastoral areas (andelsewhere). However, while there has been importantprogress, more can be done to ensure local contextsare understood and considered; land users areinvolved to guide and inform what is and is notappropriate; and existing customary land managementstrategies are built on. Persistent challenges are asfollows:

• Inadequate definition of ‘community’, insufficientregard for local economic, social and politicalfactors and inappropriate intervention scales (e.g.not commensurate with livelihood zones)jeopardise selection of community members


17. Senior Agricultural Economist, World Bank, Ethiopia18. Oxfam GB Pastoral Programme Coordinator.19. IIED Principal Researcher, Climate Change Group.

more effort into the software aspect of interventions,including building local capacity to operate andmanage schemes. However, these are dwarfed bymuch more widespread short-term emergency reliefprojects. The short-term nature of the latter, whereprojects are typically up to six months in duration,puts pressure on implementing agencies to addresswater shortages and meet targets at the expense ofappropriate planning and ensuring sustainability, whichrequires much more time. Proper planning, prior toany new physical interventions, is itself likely to takesix months (Warner and Abate, 2005). A nascenttrend is the introduction of a longer-term livelihoodsapproach to humanitarian interventions as seen underUSAID’s PLI and ECHO’s RDPP (Section 4.5), whichfocus on rehabilitation and simple waterinfrastructure in areas outside settlements. Suchprojects increasingly promote rehabilitating existingwater infrastructure (especially in more complexschemes).

Developing effective structures for usermanagement, operation and maintenance can befacilitated by increasing links to existing, customaryinstitutions. Similarly, utilising traditional watertechnologies that are familiar to users could build onan existing repository of know-how, as well asincreasing the likelihood that construction materialsand spare parts (if applicable) will be available. ThePSNP explicitly recognises traditional institutions,including the Gaada system in Oromia, the Guurti andclan elders in Somali and the Medaa20 in Afar, and aimsto ensure representatives are consulted in theidentification of beneficiaries and their knowledge onrangeland and water issues is used to ensure publicworks are compatible with extensive livestockproduction. It should be noted, however, thatcustomary institutions may not represent alllivelihood groups in a given area (Muir, 2007), andoften do not represent the needs and views ofwomen. Some form of hybrid arrangement may bemore appropriate, combining traditional structureswith others such as water user and pastoralassociations. A further issue which requires furtherexploration is the fact that customary institutionshave evolved with time – whereas developmentpractitioners often view these institutions as fossilised

entities retaining a set of characteristics described inhistorical texts.

A final principle widely identified as good practiceis to seek contributions of labour and/or cash forwater developments. The government’s PCDPrequires a community contribution of 15%, 5% ofwhich is expected in cash. Cash contributions areusually harder to secure than labour. Here again,traditional institutions can help – the PLI Phase Ifound that contributions were easier to justify andobtain where such institutions had a strong role inorganising the work. However, consideration shouldalso be given to the cost recovery policy of otherprogrammes in the area. For example, there remains afundamental difference between the government’sPCDP and PSNP (which overlap in nine woredas). ThePSNP pays cash for public works whereas the PCDPentails a mandatory 5% cash contribution fromcommunities for all infrastructure developments.Where cash for work is the common practice, it isdifficult to secure monetary contributions (dialoguehas begun between the PSNP and PCDP to iron outdifferences in approach – Belayhun Hailu,21 personalcommunication). Established programmes often setthe bar for the maximum communities will contribute(Behnke et al., 2008). Diversity in communitycontribution requirements is especially large amongNGOs, which may perceive this issue as a way toestablish a niche in the face of competition for donorfunds and community attention.

5.3 Recommendations

Picking up on the principles outlined above, thissection presents a preliminary set of guidelines forwater development in pastoral areas, based primarilyon three existing sets of guidelines, used as anexample to kick-start dialogue (MoARD, 2008;Thorne, 2009; Warner and Abate, 2005). This is notmeant to be prescriptive, but rather is intended to setthe stage for potential further discussion towards anagreed set of guidelines. Discussion among keystakeholders in the water development sector inEthiopia can be envisioned to result in a full set ofcommon guidelines for water development in the


also vocal about ways to mitigate them. Gomes(2006) notes that xeer (traditional agreementsbetween elders of structurally distant groups on theethnic Somali genealogical charter) have emerged inparts of Somali to limit the establishment of newwater sources around existing settlements as well asin wet season grazing areas. MoFA’s PCDP highlightsthat smaller temporary water catchments are moresuitable in wet season grazing areas to avoidsettlement and its associated problems. It alsoemphasises the rehabilitation of existing water points,where possible. MoWR’s WSSP recognises thenegative impacts associated with large capacity waterpoints in the rangelands, recommending that pointsnot exceed a size which waters a maximum of 4,500cattle a day and be spaced about 20km apart.Nevertheless, water developments promoting thesedentarisation of pastoralists continue to beobserved in Ethiopia, as we have seen.

The current strategic policy direction, includingcontinued prioritisation of irrigation and theexpansion of agriculture in the rangelands, is perhapsthe most important driver. If government policy andstrategy objectives remain as they are, land available

for grazing is likely to be reduced (especially key dryseason grazing areas), pastoral access to rivers tobecome further obstructed, exacerbating waterproblems, and mobility to be further undermined.Finding common ground between national, regional,sub-regional and local priorities will be essential toensure national economic growth can occurunimpeded but without compromising sustainabledevelopment that responds to local needs.

Secure sustainability through capacity-building, user contributions and use ofcustomary institutions and practicesEven the most carefully planned, designed andimplemented interventions will fail if adequateattention is not given to issues of sustainability. Table4’s third set of principles are not afterthoughts thatcan be left until water developments have taken place.Rather, they need to be considered from the earlieststages. Unless capacity to operate, manage andmaintain water points locally is prioritised actively inproject planning, the proliferation of unsustainableand inappropriate water points is likely to continue.Development-oriented projects have begun to put


20. Customary institution in Afar region.21. Senior Officer, Knowledge Management and ParticipatoryLearning Unit of the PCDP Program

limited. In all cases, careful attention should begiven to the potential for conflict betweenexisting users and potential new users attractedto an increased water supply;

• Development of new water points. This optionshould be reserved for instances where theabove options have been exhausted and theneed for and potential impacts of introducingnew water points has been carefully evaluated,with remedial measures identified to tacklenegative effects. Planners should explain theavailable technological options and helpcommunities, through a process of dialogue andknowledge-sharing, to select the most suitabletechnology to satisfy local needs. This requiresattention to cost, hydrological and geologicalcontext, expressed needs and capacities of thecommunity, familiarity and simplicity of thetechnology and local availability of constructionmaterials, spare parts and technical support. Theplacement and capacity of water points alsoshould be discussed thoroughly withstakeholders.

In addition, consideration should be given to thepotential for the project to address otherdevelopment needs such as human and livestockhealth and access to markets, either directly (fundspermitting) or in partnership with other programmes.

ImplementationImplementation can be regarded as effectively being acontinuation of the planning process, building onparticipation and dialogue already established.

• Management arrangements: It is essential toestablish clear and equitable management systemsfor water points at the earliest stage ofimplementation (potentially at the planning stage,building on prospective users’ participation inplanning processes). • Communities should be assisted to establish

water management committees (or variationsthereof), representative of all groups with a stakein the development. Committees should helpdefine and manage water interventions. To avoidmisuse of the water point, it is imperative thatwater management committees be seen by thewider community as a credible entity whichrepresents all user groups, including pastoralists

and non-pastoralists (e.g. immigrants, InternallyDisplaced Persons, refugees) as well asvulnerable groups and women. Committeesshould also be expected to report on progressto the wider community and to localgovernment.

• Such committees should build on and strengthenexisting customary resource managementsystems rather than importing new systemsexternal to the pastoral context. Customarysystems and institutions have often developed astried and tested responses to the context andculture, and can therefore help to diffuse orprevent conflict over water. At the same time,customary systems and institutions are oftenpoorly understood, and are constantly evolving.Moreover, a combination of formal managementcommittees and customary institutions isrecommended, as the latter on its own may notreflect the full constituency in an area and maynot be representative of non-pastoral groups(Muir, 2007).

• Cost recovery: To enhance communitycommitment to maintaining the water point andensure it is sustainable beyond the lifetime of theproject, a community contribution of cash and/orlabour towards construction or rehabilitation ofwater points is recommended.

• Training: Local community members (e.g. watermanagement committee members and localartisans) should be trained in construction,management, operation and maintenance to embedcapacity at the local level.

SustainabilityTo ensure sustainability of schemes once built, thefollowing is recommended:

• Continuing to assist communities to operateschemes for some time after project completion ifneeded;

• Helping communities to prepare a plan outliningroutine maintenance and repairs which should beaccepted and followed;

• Encouraging water management committees toreport to the community and possibly to localgovernment technical bureaus;

• Promoting and enhancing linkages betweencommunities, local government and the privatesector so potential challenges related to water


pastoral context, flexible enough to allow forcontext-specific planning. Use of these guidelinesshould be streamlined through existing coordinationfora on development and emergency interventions inpastoral regions.

PlanningLocal needs and opportunities need to be understoodduring the planning stage of any water intervention,with paid attention to context and existing watersystems (and their management structures). Theplanning stage is critical and often requiresconsiderable time and effort (six to twelve monthsfor long-term interventions22) to ensure anintervention is appropriate, will satisfy demand andwill be sustainable in the long term. Key componentsare as follows:

• Stakeholder mapping: A comprehensivestakeholder analysis at local level can help inunderstanding who the different potential resourceusers are (the ‘community’ who will benefit) andalso who may stand to gain or lose from waterinterventions (e.g. upstream and downstream usersalong rivers). As part of this process, exploration ofcurrent access patterns to water is recommended,to identify local customary institutions andrepresentatives and understand existing watermanagement strategies and relationships betweengroups. Engaging with community leaders in an areais important to avoid conflict over water points. Itis also important to identify local non-pastoralgroups and those not represented by customaryinstitutions (e.g. immigrants, Internally DisplacedPersons, refugees).

• Community involvement and participation:Participatory methods of community engagementshould be used to identify local concerns andneeds, with room for dialogue and negotiationbetween planners and communities on the mostsuitable type/placement/size of water points. Theseapproaches will also enhance buy-in and commit -ment at the local level. Planners should engage with local groups representative of the differentresource users in the area, including customaryinstitutions. Groups should also reflect the differentwealth strata in the community and include women

and vulnerable groups. Participatory naturalresource mapping can be used to understand theextent and quality of existing pasture and waterand different land use patterns. Once generated,maps provide a visual device around which plannersand community representatives can discussconcerns and needs regarding water, within a

broader landscape/natural resource managementcontext. A sound assessment of demand for watershould also be undertaken, based on human andlivestock population estimates (if available) as wellas local authority records, and shouldaccommodate projected change in demand.

• Project type: Three basic forms of interventioncan be considered: • Removal of existing inappropriate water sources.

Water points may be inappropriate for manyreasons, including being beyond the financial ortechnical capacity of local people to use orrepair or being placed in contentious locations;

• Rehabilitation of non-functional or poorlyperforming points. Increased attention to thepotential for rehabilitation is especiallyimportant in the case of emergencyinterventions, where the project lifecycle is


22. This may be shorter if there is an existing relationshipbetween the implementing organization and the community.

Abdulahi, M. and Adenew, B. (2007) ‘Research andAdvocacy on Land Use Right and Tenure Systems inPastoral Areas of Ethiopia’. Report for PCAE.

Afar Regional State (2009) ‘Draft Rural LandAdministration and Use Proclamation’. Afar: AfarRegional Government.

Bassi, M. (2005) Decisions in the Shade: Political andJuridical Processes among the Oromo-Borana.Trenton, NJ: Red Sea Press.

Behnke, R. (1994) ‘Natural Resource Management inPastoral Africa’. Development Policy Review 12(1):5–27.

Behnke R., Kerven C. and Teshome A. (2008)‘Evaluation of USAID Pastoral DevelopmentProjects in Ethiopia’. Report for USAID.

Beyene, F. and Korf, B. (2008) ‘Unmaking theCommons: Collective Action, Property Rights, andResource Appropriation in Somali Region, Ethiopia’.CAPRi Working Paper 88. Washington, DC: IFPRI.

CARE Ethiopia (2008) ‘PLI/ENABLE Afar RegionTerminal Report’. Addis Ababa: CARE Ethiopia.

Coppock, D.L. (ed.) (1994) ‘The Borana Plateau ofSouthern Ethiopia: Synthesis of Pastoral Research,Development and Change, 1980–91’. Addis Ababa:ILCA.

Demeke, F. (2008) ‘For the Running Dry Initiative:Empowering Poor People to Manage Water in Aridand Semi-arid Lands’. Guideline for Conflict-sensitive Programming. Addis Ababa: CAREEthiopia.

Desta, S., Berhanu, W., Gebru, G. and Amosha, D.(2008) ‘Pastoral Dropout Study in SelectedWoredas of Borana Zone Oromia Regional State’.Addis Ababa: CARE Ethiopia.

Devereux, S. (2006) ‘Vulnerable Livelihoods in SomaliRegion, Ethiopia’. Research Report 57, Brighton:IDS.

Dongier, P., van Domelen, J., Ostrom, E., Rizvi, A.,Wakeman, W., Bebbington, A., Alkire, S., Esmail, T.and Polski, M. (2002) ‘Community-drivenDevelopment’, in J. Klugman (ed.) A Sourcebook for

Poverty Reduction Strategies. Washington, DC:World Bank.

Elias, E. (2008) ‘Pastoralists in Southern Ethiopia:Dispossession, Access to Resources and Dialoguewith Policy Makers.’ Report 53. Oslo: DrylandsCoordination Group.

Faal, J., Nicol, A. and Tucker, J. (2009) ‘Multiple-useWater Services (MUS): Cost-effective WaterInvestments to Reduce Poverty and Address All the MDGs’. RiPPLE Policy Brief 1. Addis Ababa:RiPPLE.

Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (2007)‘Summary and Statistical Report of the 2007Population and Housing Census’. Addis Ababa:Population Census Commission.

Flintan, F. and Cullis, A. (2010) ‘Introductory Guidelinesto Participatory Rangeland Management in PastoralAreas’. Addis Ababa: SC-US.

Fuller, N. (ed.) (1999) Managing Mobility in AfricanRangelands: The Legitimization of Transhumance.London: Intermediate Technology Publications.

Gebre-Mariam, A. (1982) ‘Organization andManagement of Ponds in Southern RangelandDevelopment Project’. Addis Ababa: JointILCA/RDP Ethiopian Pastoral Systems StudyProgramme.

Getahun, T. (2004) ‘Household Livelihood SecurityAssessments (HLSA): Fentale Woreda, OromiaRegion; Awash Fentale and Amibara Woredas, AfarRegion’. Draft Report for CARE Ethiopia.

Giovannetti, F. (2006) ‘Implementation Guidelines forWater Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene Projects inPastoralist Areas to Inform the PastoralCommunity Development Project (PCDP) andWater Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene Program(WSSP)’. Addis Ababa: MoWR and World Bank.

Global Water Initiative (2008) ‘Running Dry –Empowering Poor People to Manage Water in Aridand Semi-Arid Lands’. Global Water Initiative/EastAfrica Cluster. Interim Report for the Howard G.Buffett Foundation.

References 43

References

point operation and maintenance can be overcome.Pastoral associations may provide a vehicle for suchcommunication. Preferably, agreements should befacilitated with technical bureaus and the privatesector to assist should major interventions(maintenance, etc.) be needed in the future;

• Conducting external evaluations of projects totrack progress and monitor impacts, for exampleon livelihoods; and

• Making better use of existing research to informwater development planning and implementation

and promote knowledge-sharing betweenpractitioners and projects, for example byestablishing learning and practice alliances.

In the long term, the aim should be to create anenabling environment where local groupsrepresentative of water users in a given area have thecapacity and authority to construct, operate, manageand maintain water points, as appropriate, effectivelymaking them implementers rather than merelyrecipients of development.


Muir, A. (2007) ‘Customary Pastoral InstitutionsStudy’. Addis Ababa: SOS Sahel and PLI.

Mwangi E. and Dohrn, S. (2006) ‘Biting the Bullet: HowTo Secure Access to Drylands Resources forMultiple Users’. CAPRi Working Paper 47.Washington, DC: IFPRI.

Oromia Water Works Design and SupervisionEnterprise (2008) ‘The Oromia DevelopmentCorridors Approach Strategic Plan’. Oromia:OWWDSE, Oromia Regional Government.

Oromia Water Works Design and SupervisionEnterprise (2009) ‘Pilot Phase Land UseImplementation Plan’. Draft. Oromia: OWWDSE,Oromia Regional Government.

Pankhurst, H. (2009) ‘Strategy for IWRM in theBorana Pastoral Context’. Addis Ababa: GWI andCARE International.

Pastoralist Forum Ethiopia (2009) ‘PastoralistPerspectives of PRSP’. Addis Ababa: PastoralistForum Ethiopia.

Sandford S. (1983) ‘Organization and Management ofWater Supplies in Tropical Africa’. Research Report8. Nairobi: ILCA.

Schimann P. and Philpott J. (2007) ‘Mid-term Evaluation of DG ECHO-financed Actions in the Great Horn of Africa (GHA)’. Report for the EC.

Scott-Villiers, A. (ed.) (2006) ‘Peace, Trade and Unity:Reporting from the Horn of Africa RegionalPastoralist Gathering, Qarsaa Dembii, Yabello,Ethiopia’. UN OCHA Pastoralist CommunicationInitiative.

SOS Sahel Ethiopia (2008) ‘Pastoralism in Ethiopia: ItsTotal Economic Values and DevelopmentChallenges’. Report for IUCN-WISP.

Tache, B.D. (2000) ‘Individualising the Commons:Changing Resource Tenure among Borana Oromoof Southern Ethiopia’. Addis Ababa University.

Thorne, P. (2009) ‘Minimum Standards for theProvision of Water’, in Save the Children UKLivestock Emergency Guidelines and Standards(LEGS). London: Practical Action Publishing.

Tekele, F. (2005) ‘Development Endeavours andChallenges in Pastoral Regions of Ethiopia’. AddisAbaba: PADD, MoFA.

Walker, R. and Sugule, J. (1998) ‘Changing Pastoralismin the Ethiopian Somali National Regional State’.Addis Ababa: UNDP-EU.

Warner D.B. and Abate C.G. (2005) ‘Guidelines forthe Development of Small-scale Rural Water Supplyand Sanitation Projects in East Africa. A Policy andPlanning Framework for Activities Funded byUSAID under the Title II (Food for Peace) Programand by Other Donors’. Addis Ababa: CRS.

World Bank (1991) ‘Rangelands Development ProjectCredit 603 ET, Ethiopia’. Project CompletionReport. Addis Ababa: World Bank.

World Bank (2008) ‘Pastoral CommunityDevelopment Project II Report No:43472-ET,Ethiopia’. Project Appraisal Document. Addis Ababa:World Bank.

World Bank (2009a) ‘Pastoral CommunityDevelopment Project Phase I’. ImplementationCompletion and Results Report. Addis Ababa:World Bank.

World Bank (2009b) ‘Productive Safety Net APL III’.Project Information Document. Report No.:AB4592. Addis Ababa: World Bank.

Yemane, B. (2003) ‘Food Security Situation in thePastoral Areas of Ethiopia’. Oxford: Oxfam GB.

References 45

Gomes, N. (2006) ‘Access to Water, Pastoral ResourceManagement and Pastoralists’ Livelihoods: LessonsLearned from Water development in SelectedAreas of Eastern Africa (Kenya, Ethiopia, Somalia)’.Rome: Livelihood Support Programme, Food andAgricultural Organization.

Hardin, G. (1968) ‘The Tragedy of the Commons’.Science 162(3859): 1243–1248.

Helland, J. (1980) ‘Five Essays on the Study ofPastoralists and the Development of Pastoralism’.Department of Social Anthropology OccasionalPaper 20. Bergen: University of Bergen.

Helland, J. (1997) ‘Development Interventions andPastoral Dynamics in Southern Ethiopia’, in Hogg,R. (ed.) Pastoralists, Ethnicity and the State inEthiopia. London: Haan.

Helland, J. (2006) ‘Land Tenure in the Pastoral Areas ofEthiopia’. International Research Workshop onProperty Rights, Collective Action and PovertyReduction in Pastoral Areas of Afar and SomaliNational Regional State, Ethiopia, Addis Ababa.

Hesse, C., and MacGregor, J. (2006) ‘Pastoralism:Drylands, Invisible Asset?’ Issue Paper 142. London:IIED.

Hogg, R. (1993) ‘Government Policy and Pastoralism:Some Critical Issues’. Conference on Pastoralism inEthiopia, Addis Ababa, 4–6 February.

Hogg, R. (1997) ‘Changing Land Use and ResourceConflict among Somali Pastoralists in the Haud ofSouth-eastern Ethiopia’, in R. Hogg (ed.)Pastoralists, Ethnicity and the State in Ethiopia.London: Haan.

Hundie, B. (2006) ‘Property Rights among AfarPastoralists of Northeastern Ethiopia: Forms,Changes and Conflicts’. Berlin: HumboldtUniversity of Berlin.

International Institute for Environment andDevelopment and SOS Sahel UK (2010) ‘Modernand Mobile: The Future of Livestock Production inAfrica’s Drylands’. London: IIED.

Kamara, A., Swallow, B. and Kirk, M. (2002) ‘Role ofPolicies and Development Interventions in PastoralResource Management: The Borana Rangelands inSouthern Ethiopia’. Socio-economics and PolicyResearch Working Paper 53. Nairobi: ILRI.

Kassahun, A., Snyman, H.A. and Smit, G.N. (2008)‘Impact of Rangeland Degradation on the PastoralProduction Systems, Livelihoods and Perceptions ofthe Somali Pastoralists in Eastern Ethiopia’. Journalof Arid Environments 72(7): 1265–1281.

Little, P., Mcpeak, J., Barrett, C.B. and Kristjanson, P.(2008) ‘Challenging Orthodoxies: UnderstandingPoverty in Pastoral Areas of East Africa’.Development and Change 39(4): 587–611.

McCarthy, N., Kamara, A. and Kirk, M. (2001) ‘TheEffect of Environmental Variability on Livestock andLand-Use Management: The Borana Plateau,Southern Ethiopia’. Nairobi: IFPRI, USA and ILRI.

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development(2007a) ‘The Productive Safety Net Programme inPastoral Areas: Pilot Design’. PTF Version 4. AddisAbaba: MoARD.

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development(2007b) ‘Draft Guidelines for the Implementationof the Productive Safety Net Programme: Pastoral Areas Pilot’. Version 2. Addis Ababa:MoARD.

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development(2008) ‘National Guidelines for Livestock ReliefInterventions in Pastoralist Areas of Ethiopia’. AddisAbaba: MoARD.

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development(2008) ‘Pastoral Pilot Progress’. Addis Ababa:MoARD.

Ministry of Federal Affairs (2008) ‘Draft PolicyStatement for the Sustainable Development ofPastoral and Agro Pastoral Areas of Ethiopia’. AddisAbaba: MoFA.

Ministry of Finance and Economic Development(2001) ‘Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper’. AddisAbaba: MoFED.

Ministry of Finance and Economic Development(2006) ‘Plan for Accelerated and Sustained Develop ment to End Poverty’. Addis Ababa:MoFED.

Ministry of Information (2001) ‘Rural DevelopmentPolicies, Strategies and Instruments’. DraftTranslation. Addis Ababa: MoI.

Ministry of Water Resources (1999) ‘Comprehensiveand Integrated Water Resources Management:Ethiopian Water Resources Management Policy’.Addis Ababa: MoWR.

Ministry of Water Resources (2002) ‘Water SectorDevelopment Programme 2002–2016’. AddisAbaba: MoWR.

Ministry of Water Resources (2009) ‘Review of RuralWater Supply UAP Implementation andReformulation of Plan and Strategies forAccelerated Implementation – SummarizedVersion’. Addis Ababa: MoWR.


Water Development in Ethiopia’s Pastoral Aareas 4746 Water Development in Ethiopia’s Pastoral Areas

Annex 1:

National strategies and laws influencingdevelopment in pastoral areas

Policy/strategy Relevance to pastoral development

Poverty ReductionStrategy Paper(PRSP) (2001)

Emphasises irrigation development in the lowlands and supports the long-termvision of sedentary livelihoods for pastoralists

Mentions mobile service provision (e.g. health and education) to accommodatemobile pastoralism in the interim

Acknowledges the importance of integrating drinking water supply with pasture,encouraging promotion and construction of ponds and other water harvestingtechnologies and construction of water points close to range resourcesRecognises that pastoralists possess important traditional knowledge that should beconsidered and brought on board to make national policy more relevant forpastoral regions

Plan for Acceleratedand SustainedDevelopment to EndPoverty (PASDEP)(2006)

Guides all development activities from 2006 to 2010

Echoes the PRSP in terms of emphasis on irrigation development in the lowlands aswell as the long-term vision of sedentary livelihoods for pastoralists

Deeper discussion of pastoralism-related issues as compared with the PRSP, e.g.recognises that mobility and livestock are central to the pastoral system and thatrestricted mobility disrupts livelihoods

Recognises that formal institutions have limited understanding of pastoral communalrange management strategies, which is a challenge for pastoral livelihoods

Rural DevelopmentPolicies, Strategiesand Instruments(RDPS) (2001)

Since agricultural development is earmarked as a central economic growth strategy,guides development in rural areas to achieve rapid growth in the agricultural sector,principally through crop cultivation

In pastoral areas, short- and medium-term strategies focus on availing water forlivestock production, with little mention of how this should be approached. In thelong term, pastoralism is seen as an unsustainable livelihood and sedentarisation isencouraged with irrigated agriculture as a core livelihood activity

Recognises the value of strengthening customary land management practices as wellas the value of local pastoral knowledge. Participation is mentioned explicitly

Policy/strategy Relevance to pastoral development

Poverty ReductionStrategy Paper(PRSP) (2001)

Emphasises irrigation development in the lowlands and supports the long-termvision of sedentary livelihoods for pastoralists

Mentions mobile service provision (e.g. health and education) to accommodatemobile pastoralism in the interim

Acknowledges the importance of integrating drinking water supply with pasture,encouraging promotion and construction of ponds and other water harvestingtechnologies and construction of water points close to range resourcesRecognises that pastoralists possess important traditional knowledge that should beconsidered and brought on board to make national policy more relevant forpastoral regions

Ethiopian WaterResourcesManagement Policy(1999)

Developed to address the lack of a comprehensive water resource managementstrategy and ambiguous or unattainable targets and plans

Recognises livestock water as an integral part of water sector and emphasises itsimportance for lowland areas

Promotes decentralised water management, emphasising clear roles, strong verticallinks and capacity-building. Encourages meaningful participation through structuresincluding WUAs

In terms of irrigation, promotes medium- to large-scale irrigation for food securityat national level and small-to medium-scale projects for household-level foodsecurity; calls for co-existence of irrigation projects with indigenous peoples

Federal Rural LandLaw (2005)

Supports the private holding of land, be it for individual farmers to claim agriculturalland or for pastoralists to claim a portion of the rangelands Does not recognise the rationale of traditional communal landholding

Draft PolicyStatement for theSustainableDevelopment ofPastoral and Agro-pastoral Areas ofEthiopia (2008)

Calls for recognition of needs of pastoralists and agro-pastoralists in all nationalpolicy and planning frameworks, including in relation to climate change and localgovernanceEnvisions a long-term ‘gradual and voluntary transition towards permanentsettlement especially along the perennial river banks’, supported by waterharvesting and multi-purpose dams for irrigation

Sources: MoFED (2001; 2006); MoI (2001); MoWR (1999).

Pastoral development projects withimplications for water development The PCDP: In terms of specific pastoraldevelopment programmes, the PCDP is a $60 million,15-year, 3-phase project, launched in 2001 by MoFA,which was developed in response to failed top-downinterventions in pastoral areas. The PCDP is jointlyfunded by the Ethiopian government, the World Bankand the International Fund for AgriculturalDevelopment (IFAD), and emphasises the WorldBank’s Community-driven Development approach(CDD),23 along with the use of tools such asParticipatory Rural Appraisal (PRA)24 (AssayeLegesse,25 personal communication) to promoteparticipation. Local communities are meant to beresponsible for project design, implementation andmanagement, and receive technical training for theseroles. MSTs are to work closely with communities toassess and address capacity gaps and to act asfacilitators between the community and sectoralexperts at regional/woreda level (Assaye Legesse,personal communication). However, the projectcompletion report for Phase I (implemented 2003–2008) notes that MSTs were overstretched, and thecommunity-driven approach was not able to meethigh expectations (World Bank, 2009a).

Community consultation has nonetheless seenwater emerge as a priority issue, especially forpastoralists, for whom it ranks equal first withpasture. However, while interventions are demand-driven, water point technologies are selected by theworeda water bureau, depending on water resourcesand funds available and the agro-ecological context.Social and environmental impacts are also meant tobe considered, but this occurs only rarely (WorldBank, 2009a). Phase II is currently underway (2008-2013) and aims to increase the emphasis onunderstanding social dynamics, measuring social andlivelihoods impacts and financing small schemes suchas hand-dug wells, birkado and hafir dams, to avoidthe negative consequences of larger schemes such as

encouraging settlement and overgrazing (World Bank,2008).

The PSNP-PAP: MoARD, meanwhile, has morerecently turned its attention to pastoral livelihoodsunder its PNSP, which was originally launched in 2005as part of the Food Security Programme. The overallemphasis is on increasing food security to reducereliance on food aid (World Bank, 2009b). The PAPwas integrated into the PSNP in 2007, working inareas including nine woredas in Somali, six in Afar,three in Oromia and three in SNNPR, with the aim ofdeveloping guidelines for scaled-up implementation.The PSNP-PAP includes a number of importantinnovations with regard to working in pastoral areas,including (MoARD, 2007a)

• Timing projects according to seasonality of lowlandlivelihoods;

• Public works to be developed in the context oflivelihood and landscape zones rather than politicaldemarcations such as kebeles, and with attention tosettlement and mobility patterns;

• Involvement of traditional institutions, such as theGada system in Oromia, to increase understandingof, for example, the potential impacts of publicworks on pastoral livelihoods; and

• The use of natural resource and socioeconomicmapping and analysis.

A progress report in 2008 indicates that, despitethese bold innovations, familiar problems have arisenaround recruiting and retaining competent staff,insufficient engagement with target communities andweak coordination, reporting and information-sharing.Such lessons were not necessarily being heeded aspolitical pressure mounted to roll out the PSNP inpastoral areas.

Water Development in Ethiopia’s Pastoral Aareas 49

Water development programmes withimplications for pastoral developmentThe UAP: The flagship national programme forwater supply development, the UAP was launched in2005, with the objective of providing access to safewater to 98% of the rural population by 2012. TheUAP envisages a major focus on hardwareconstruction, with 110,460 new rural water supplyschemes planned between 2009 and 2012 –implementation guidelines are only currently beingdrafted. Pastoral areas are not explicitly recognised,nor are the different needs of mobile and sedentarycommunities. User participation is envisaged, butselection criteria for user committees are based oncriteria imported from the highlands, leaving potentialfor conflict with lowland customary institutions andsocial structures. In the past five years, Multiple UseWater Services (MUS) principles have been promotedto meet water demand for both domestic andproductive uses (Faal et al., 2009), for example byconstructing livestock troughs around water pointsdesigned for human supply. Multiple uses are currentlymentioned the UAP (as well as the PASDEP), thoughonly briefly.

The WSDP: The ambitious UAP targets have beenincorporated into MoWR’s WSDP, a 15-yearprogramme commencing in 2002. Although ‘soft’components such as participation and local capacity-building are mentioned in the WSDP, there is a riskthat these will be trumped by pressure to deliver onthe ‘hard’ outputs of new water supply schemes.Pastoralists are mentioned explicitly at points withinthe WSDP, and provision of water for livestock innomadic areas is listed as one of six priorities.However, there is little clarity on how exactly theirneeds are to be met. Participation through theinvolvement of community organisations isencouraged, with special attention to the potentialinteraction of community institutions and localgovernment.

Within the WSDP, sub-programmes focusrespectively on water supply and sanitation andirrigation. The WSSDP promotes stakeholderparticipation throughout water point developmentand subsequent operation and maintenance. It focuseson hardware, relying principally on groundwater(deep wells, hand-dug wells and spring development)for Afar, Oromia, SNNPR and Somali. Use of domesticwater supply for livestock is discouraged unless thereare no surface sources available nearby, in which casecattle troughs may be constructed at domestic watersources. Additional interventions include river-basedwater schemes for Somali, and birkado and ponds forlivestock in SNNPR. The IDP also saw an increasedtarget, in line with the PASDEP, for development of anadditional 430,000 ha of irrigated land by 2010, to beachieved through a mix of federal large-scale schemes(roughly half the total) and regional small- to medium-scale schemes. A total of 83% of investment for thelatter category is targeted at four regions, includingOromia and SNNPR with their significant pastoralpopulations (MoWR, 2002).

The WSSP: A final important MoWR-ledintervention is the WSSP, which aims to construct5,500 community-managed schemes in rural areas,including Afar, Somali, Oromia and SNNPR (MoWR,2009). In 2006, two years into the programme, it wasrealised that special implementation guidelines wererequired for pastoral areas (Giovannetti, 2006). Theseguidelines recognise different settlements accordingto levels of pastoralist presence, the importance ofmobility and risks related to sedentarisation, over-sized schemes and importing solutions from thehighlands. While these are important considerations,the guidelines nonetheless appear to follow theconventional wisdom that selection and placement ofwater points should be guided by technical and costconsiderations, rather than by potential impact oninteractions between local people, livestock andlandscape.

48 Water Development in Ethiopia’s Pastoral Areas

Annex 2:

Major government water and pastoraldevelopment programmes

23. The World Bank broadly defines CDD as an approach whichgives community groups and local government control overplanning and investment decisions and operates on ‘the principlesof local empowerment, participatory governance, demandresponsiveness, administrative autonomy, greater downwardaccountability, and enhanced local capacity’. It also states that‘given clear rules of the game, access to information, andappropriate capacity and financial support, poor men and womencan effectively organize in order to identify community priorities

and address local problems’ by working together with localgovernment and other institutions (Dongier et al., 2002).24. Distinguished by ‘the use of local graphic representationscreated by the community that legitimize local knowledge andpromote empowerment’ (http://www.iisd.org/casl/caslguide/pra.htm). 25. Senior Agricultural Economist, Rural Development, World Bank.

Save the Children USAEthiopia Country Office

PO Box 387, Addis Ababa, EthiopiaTel: +251 (0)11 372 84 55

www.savethechildren.net

Overseas Development Institute203 Blackfriars Road, London SE1 8NJ, UK

Tel: +44 (0)20 7922 0300Email: [email protected]

www.odi.org.uk

Common, agreed-on guidelines for waterdevelopment in pastoral areas do not exist inEthiopia. This frustrates moves towards streamliningpractice in the water development arena. However,there are a number of existing guidelines on water,participatory mapping and conflict-sensitive planning.These may prove useful as a foundation on which tobuild a broadly applicable set of guidelines for waterdevelopment for productive use, which are versatileenough to allow context-specific planning in pastoralrangelands. These include the following:

• Implementation guidelines for water supply,sanitation and hygiene projects in pastoral areas(Giovannetti, 2006). Developed by MoWR, theseguidelines are meant to guide the PCDP’s andWSSP’s water interventions for domestic use, butprovisions are also made for livestock watering;

• National guidelines for livestock relief interventionsin pastoralist areas of Ethiopia (MoARD, 2008).Developed by MoARD, this set of guidelinesincludes a subsection on emergency provision ofwater to livestock as well as guidelines onparticipatory natural resource mapping;

• The Livestock Emergency Guidelines andStandards. This international set of guidelines,developed in 2009, includes a subsection on theminimum standards for the provision of water(Thorne, 2009);

• The international humanitarian Sphere guidelines(Sphere Humanitarian Charter and Minimum

Standards in Disaster Response), which include asection on water, sanitation and hygiene;26

• Guidelines for the development of small-scale ruralwater supply and sanitation projects in East Africa.This set of guidelines was funded by USAID andproduced by Catholic Relief Services (Warner andAbate, 2005);

• Introductory volume and guidelines onparticipatory rangeland management, lead by SC-US and the ELSE/ELMT Technical Working Group.These documents present a process ofparticipatory rangeland management built on thesuccess of participatory forest management, soproviding a framework for community-led land useplanning and resource management in pastoralareas (Flintan and Cullis, 2010).

• Guidelines on participatory resource mapping,developed independently by the government’sPSNP and also by USAID’s PLI. These can be usedto help plan water development interventions in amanner which is highly context-specific. Apublished version of these guidelines is beingproduced by SC-US as part of a series of guidelinesfor practitioners focusing on aspects ofparticipatory rangeland management;

• Guidelines for conflict-sensitive programming,developed by CARE Ethiopia for pastoral areas inBorana zone, Oromia region, under the GWIprogramme (Demeke, 2008). This set of guidelineshas relevance in multiple pastoral settings and canhelp to inform water development planning.

50 Water Development in Ethiopia’s Pastoral Areas

Annex 3:

Water development guidelines

26. http://www.sphereproject.org/.

Date post:	22-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	trinhminh
View:	220 times
Download:	3 times

Water Development in Ethiopia’s Pastoral Areas · PDF fileWater Development in...

Documents