Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Page 1 of 31
ACSF-Oxfam Rural Resilience Project
Case Study: Borana, Ethiopia
Chuan Liao PhD Student
Natural Resources Cornell University
March 2014
Atkinson Center for a Sustainable Future
www.acsf.cornell.edu
Page 2 of 31
Rural Resilience Assessment in Borana, Ethiopia
1. Study Area
The fieldwork of this rural resilience assessment project was conducted in Borana, Ethiopia (Figure 1).
The elevation varies from 500 to 2500 m. Over 95,000 km2 in size, it is home to over 350,000 people with
a livestock population fluctuating around a million. The climate is largely semi-arid with relatively cool
annual temperatures (19-24°C) and a mean annual rainfall ranging from 300 mm in the lowland up to
1000 mm in highland. It is worth pointing out that the annual precipitation distribution is bimodal, with
60% from April to May and 30% from October to November. Vegetation in Borana is mainly comprised
of a mixed savanna, which is dominated by perennial grasses (Cenchrus, Pennisetum, and Chrysopogon
spp.) and woody plants (Acacia and Commiphora spp.).
Figure 1. Borana in southern Ethiopia
Livestock herding is commonly practiced in Borana, which generally falls in two categories. One is
home-based herding, which involves the herding of milking cattle with calves and small stock close to the
encampments. The herds in this category are usually referred to as worra. The other is satellite herding,
including bulls and immature stock herded further away from the encampments. This group of herds is
known as forra. They usually range more widely and have access to better forage.
Page 3 of 31
Complex mechanisms have evolved to resolve conflicts within the Boran society and beyond over the
past five centuries. Such an indigenous political system has effectively regulated human population
growth, settled disputes, interpreted and enforced resource-use policies, and redistributed wealth.
However, in face of new challenges such as massive immigration, political marginalization, and land
privatization, traditional institutions are getting increasingly incapable and delegitimized. As an
increasing human population began to sedentarize, the traditional resource-use patterns were affected, as
well as the ability to endure crisis. Land grabs and increasing practice of crop cultivation largely caused
the disruption of common property-based pasture management practice in Borana. For the pastoralists
who remain mobile, such a process was accompanied by fragmented pastures, decreased access to grazing
land, and declines in the ratio between livestock and people. For the sedentarized pastoralists, there is
little evidence that they have become self-sufficient through grain production.
Realizing that the use and management of rangeland involves both ecological and social processes,
recent research has shifted to focus on the socio-ecological complexity in Borana. Some development
initiatives in the pastoral areas are dedicated to promote the various non-technical approaches. The
objectives are to change organizational and behavioral features of pastoral societies rather than
productivity and production patterns in the rangelands. An action-oriented approach has been
implemented to build capacity among pastoralists, which proved to contribute to the quality of life, wealth
accumulation, hunger reduction, and risk management.
2. Methods
Focus group discussions and participatory mapping were conducted in ten communities in the
summer of 2013 (Figure 2). The focus groups were conducted in ten kebeles, covering six woredas
including Arero (2), Dhas (1), Dillo (3), Tatele (2), and Yabello (2). The selection of respondents was
made on the basis of representativeness of different activities in the pastoral area. Each focus group
included at least one elder pastoralist, one female pastoralist, and one pastoralist in the kebele leadership
committee.
Page 4 of 31
Figure 2. Ten study sites and their elevations in Borana, Ethiopia
In each focus group, I first recorded the coordinates of the focus group site using a handheld GPS.
Then I asked questions regarding the five elements in the resilience framework, including governance,
civic capacity, natural resources, economic resources, and knowledge sharing. In addition, I asked open-
ended questions to get respondents thinking about resilience and developing a subjective definition, and
discussed the threats, strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities to build resilient pastoral communities.
The questions were asked by the lead researcher (C.L.) in English, and translated into Afaan Oromo by a
local facilitator fluent in both languages.
In addition, I conducted participatory mapping within each focus group discussion to investigate
natural resource distribution and migration activities. I first presented a map to the group and let them get
oriented based on the reference points, roads, and rivers. Then I asked them about the location of water
points they use in wet season, normal dry season, and extreme dry season. In cases where pastoralists
were able to locate water points on the map, I put stickers to represent each water point. In cases where
pastoralists were unable to pinpoint on the map, I elicited direction (N, NE, E, SE, S, SW, W, and NW)
and approximate distance.
Page 5 of 31
Figure 3. Participatory mapping with pastoralists
Another set of objects I mapped is rangeland resources. According to the rangeland classification by
pastoralists, the three different types are qaye (rangeland around villages), kalo (fenced rangeland
reserved for dry season), and mata tika (major herding area). I only mapped kalo and mata tika since
these places are more important to the pastoral livelihoods, while qaye is just the area around their bases
that is of little grazing value. The mapping results correspond very well with the migration patterns
reflected by GPS collar data.
3. Community Profile
I investigated the community profile by following the rural resilience framework. Among the five
indicators of resilience, governance and knowledge sharing have the least variation in the 10 kebeles,
civic capacity varies more, while natural resource and economic resource differ most among each other.
The relationships among the five indicators are summarized in Table 1.
Page 6 of 31
Table 1. Rural Resilience Capabilities Community Assessment Matrix
Resources for Resilience Capabilities
Governance (Independent Variable)
Civic Capacity (Independent Variable)
Natural Resources (Independent Variable)
Economic Resources (Independent Variable)
Learning (Independent Variable)
Governance (Dependent Variable)
Gov raise awareness of establishing saving and credit coop. Work with NGOs during drought
National gov policy to build sulula; farming training and encouragement, resulting in less rangeland
Gov decision to establish market place; encourage farming
Gov extension workers give training on farming and livestock husbandry
Civic Capacity (Dependent Variable)
Leader removal; NGOs work with gov during drought
NGOs established most of the local cooperatives
Bush clearing; pond/well construction; sulula construction
NGO labor market; saving and credit coop; food aid;
School construction; farming training
Natural Resources (Dependent Variable)
Sulula construction;
NatRes determines what NGOs do in the community
NatRes determines whether farming is suitable
NatRes determines what kind of knowledge are important
Economic Resources (Dependent Variable)
No Better access to market facilitates the establishment of commercial saving and credit cooperatives
Better access to market translates into denser population, more livestock, worse rangeland
No
Knowledge sharing (Dependent Variable)
No Contributes to the establishment of saving and credit cooperatives
Affects migration decision, especially during drought
Livestock sale decision making, crop species choice
3.1. Governance
3.1.1. Local government structure
Page 7 of 31
The hierarchy of governance in Ethiopia is: Region>Zone>Woreda>Kebele. Government policy can
reach the kebele level, but its local implementation largely depends on community participation. Under
each kebele, there are clusters; under each cluster, there are groups; under each group, there are villages.
The size of kebele varies, so as the number of clusters, groups, and villages under each kebele. In general,
there are about three clusters and 20 to 30 groups in each kebele, and there are about four to eight villages
in each group. In each village, there are about 10 to 20 households. Since the kebele level links the top-
down governance and grassroot governance in Ethiopia, it is the focus of this study.
The leaders at the kebele level and below receive no salary from the government. They volunteer to
lead the kebeles, clusters, groups, and villages. The leaders at the woreda level and above are considered
are government staff and receive payment. However, development staffs at the kebele level, who are
appointed by the woreda leadership, receive salary. They work together with the local kebele leadership
committee. Those four persons are considered as government staffs, and are respectively in charge of
education, agriculture, public health, and secretary.
The responsibility of kebele leadership is to develop the communities and act in behalf of this kebele
at the woreda level. They bring higher level government policy to the kebele, report kebele achievement
to the woreda, resolve local conflicts, identify community needs (such as infrastructure, road, health,
agriculture) and seek for solutions. The leadership also works with the elders to resolve conflicts within
and among kebeles, and design rangeland management and conservation strategies.
3.1.2. Kebele regular meeting
Kebele regular meeting is of extreme importance in terms of connecting the national and local
governance structures. When it comes to community decision, the kebele leader usually present the topic
to the attendees. Anyone can propose an idea or solution. Then the people can raise hand and vote.
Out of the 10 kebeles in this study, seven hold meeting once a week, one holds twice a month, one
holds twice a week, and one holds three times a week. There are about 80 persons attending each meeting.
The actual number of participants varies, depending on the weather. In dry season, less people attend as
they are struggling with their livelihoods. Female participation in the meeting also depends on the season.
In rain season, the proportion of male and female participants might be half-half; but in dry season, no
more than 30% are women, because they are engaged in fetching water.
People who are supposed to attend the meeting must appear, because they represent the group they
belong to. If they fail to attend, they will be punished, such as being arrested and kept in somewhere for
several hours. Some people can benefit from attending the meeting because they can receive some
Page 8 of 31
information and express their opinions. But for those that are not active, attending the meeting is more of
a burden.
Figure 4. Kebele meeting in Hirmaye, Borana
3.1.3. Leader election
Kebele leader candidates are first selected by the leading party committee members. These people
discuss and present several candidates to the woreda for approval. The approved candidates are presented
at the kebele meeting for election. Anyone in the kebele can go to the election meeting and cast their votes.
The candidate who won the most votes would become the leader. Usually the majority of the people in
the kebele will join the meeting. However, in some cases, the respondents indicated that the election
results are pre-determined, because people know each other, and know who will win.
The leaders are not necessarily well-educated, but they are usually wealthy and accepted by the
community. Anyone who has lived in the kebele for over five years will qualify. The kebele leader
candidates are those who are knowledgeable, who love, represent, and consider for the people.
3.1.4. Leader removal
Page 9 of 31
When community members are not satisfied with the leader, they report to the leading party members
in the kebele. The committee will discuss and report to the woreda leadership. The woreda leadership will
call more people to attend a meeting to confirm whether the leader conducted something wrong. If the
misbehavior was confirmed, the leader must apologize if he wants to continue his leadership. If people
accept his apology, he can stay in office. If people refuse, he will be removed.
Out of the 10 kebeles, eight of them had removed their leaders. The major reason for leader removal
is that the leaders were engaged in their own business and didn’t take care of the kebele affairs. Since
there is no payment for kebele leaders from the government, there is no consistent motivation to lead. In
the case of Kancharo, one leader was appointed 3 times and fired 3 times. The villagers believe that the
leader is good, but during dry season, he only focused on his own business. Other reasons to remove a
leader include corruption and failure in resolving conflict. However, in the case of Sarite, the leader has
led the kebele for 22 years. He is well-known even at the zone level. The villagers love him, and believe
that he is a democratic leader.
3.1.5. Connection with woreda
People at the kebele level periodically receive some resources from the woreda, which include food
aid, re-stocking, livestock vaccine, health facility, fertilizer, hay, water (in tank), road construction,
education facilities, and cash grant to establish local associations. The woreda also distributes oil, sugar to
people at a lower price. However, in some cases, people complain about the service offered by woreda. In
Sarite, one health center was built, but it stopped functioning quickly as it ran out of medicine. The
borehole with electric pump supported by the woreda also stopped working due to poor maintenance.
People at the kebele level can ask for help from the woreda level. They identify problems that are
beyond their capacity to solve, and tell their leader to report to woreda. People usually ask the woreda for
infrastructure construction such as road, electricity, and cellphone tower, which are beyond their capacity.
They also asked for constructing borehole for livestock drinking. During drought, the common requests
are water and hay. They think that the woreda is responsive to their requests. But when it comes to tribal
conflict, the leadership at the woreda level can do nothing.
3.2. Civic Capacity
3.2.1. Local organizations
Page 10 of 31
There is only one kind of local organizations in the Borana Zone, which is ubiquitous in all 10 kebeles
in this study. Despite of the various names, all these organizations work on saving and credit. The idea is
to identify a group of pastoralists who are interested in doing business and willing to contribute a certain
amount of money to the group. Anyone in the kebele can join the group, but that person must have good
reputation. With that amount of money, they can buy something and sell them elsewhere to make money.
Any member can borrow money from the group and do his/her own business, but he/she must pay back
according to the interest rate.
Most of the saving and credit cooperatives were established after the 2011 extreme drought. Aiming
at diversifying the pastoral livelihoods, both NGOs and government raised awareness of the importance
of saving for livelihoods. Their major campaign targets are women. Out of them 24 cooperatives in 10
kebeles, 16 of them are women dominated. In some cases, NGOs offered seed funds to start the
cooperatives. On the government side, they train their development staffs at the woreda level, and send
them to establish cooperatives in the kebeles. The microfinance office at the woreda level is in charge of
this business.
There are different forms of saving and credit in practice. The most common activity is to buy
livestock in the kebele and sell them in big market place. Some organizations buy beverage and fuel in the
market and sell them in the kebeles where there is no access to such goods. Some cooperatives start a
grocery store at the kebele center. There is one cooperative that are dedicated to collecting gums from
Commiphora tree species and make incense for sale in Wachille.
There are also challenges to the saving and credit organizations. Due to poor leadership, some of the
cooperatives have been experiencing dropout. When people cannot directly benefit from the cooperative,
they will refuse to contribute money and attend the regular meeting.
The establishment of saving and credit cooperatives has changed pastoralists’ hope for their future
livelihoods. Most of them expressed willingness to get more involved in business and become urban
residents. They become aware that pastoralism is getting more and more risky, and they want to leave the
pastoral sector and seek for other livelihoods.
3.2.2. NGOs
There are 17 NGOs working in the 10 kebeles in Borana (Table 2). Five of them are established in
Ethiopia, while another 12 NGOs are of western background. All these NGOs have a field office in
Yabello and operate their own projects. It is worth pointing out that although five NGOs are of Ethiopian
origin, their major donors are from Europe and/or North America. They either need to write a proposal to
Page 11 of 31
apply for funding from their donors, or are told what to do by their donors. Therefore, their working style
is similar to the international NGOs, and their work reflects the ideologies of international NGOs.
Table 2. Summary of NGOs in Borana
Name Origin #Projects #Kebeles
Gayo Pastoralist Development Initiative Ethiopia 31 7
AFD (Action for Development) Ethiopia 21 8
Save the Children International 12 5
SOS-Sahel International 10 4
AgriService Ethiopia Ethiopia 6 2
Goal Ireland 6 3
Care International 6 3
EECMY(Mekane Yesus) Ethiopia 4 2
Hundee Oromo Grassroot Development Initiative Ethiopia 4 3
CISP Italy 4 1
MDGF (Millenium Development Goal Fund) International 4 1
UNDP International 4 2
World Vision International 4 2
Panos UK 3 2
Merlin International 2 1
COOPI Italy 1 1
JICA (Japan International Cooperation Association) Japan 1 1
The most common activities that NGOs do in Borana are bush clearing, food aid, pond/well
construction and maintenance (Table 3). Overall, these most common NGO programs reflect the risks in
the pastoral communities in Borana. Food aid, as well as water aid, is a response to drought. Bush
clearing is a direct response to the ubiquitous bush encroachment in Borana. Water facility construction
programs reflect the shortage of water. These programs aim to build ponds and wells close to settlement
so pastoralists don’t need to travel long distance to get water. Other water facilities are constructed as a
response to the increasing human and livestock population, although there are quite a number of water
facilities nearby.
Most of the training workshops are about diversifying the livelihoods. The farming training efforts
encourage the adoption of livelihood based on permanent settlement. Some NGOs even provided
pastoralists with selected seeds and fertilizers to encourage farming. The establishment of saving and
Page 12 of 31
credit organizations supported by NGOs is also connected with the idea of diversifying the livelihoods
and put less emphasis on livestock herding.
Table 3. Summary of NGO projects in ten kebeles in Borana
Project Name Project number NGOs involved Kebeles
Bush clearing 18 10 9
Food aid 18 9 9
Pond 17 9 9
Well 13 8 8
Restocking 12 7 8
Saving&Credit 8 6 6
Health 7 5 6
Conservation 5 5 4
Livestock 5 4 2
Cash/loan 5 4 3
Training 4 4 4
Water 4 4 4
School 4 3 4
Road 2 2 2
Destocking 1 1 1
In general, pastoralists believe that the aids from NGOs are positive. They prefer the help from NGOs
that are more durable, such as well and pond construction. They also believe that re-stocking programs
are important because those helped them to development livestock number after drought. In addition, the
opportunity to earn cash is highly valued, since there are few chances to get cash except selling livestock.
However, some participants pointed out that food aid made some pastoralists dependent on such aid, and
are not working hard to secure their livelihoods.
“NGOs really did us big favors. They constructed wells and ponds for us. It is convenient to have
water points in close proximity to our village.”
“Re-stocking is helpful for me. I lost almost all of my livestock during the severe drought in 2011. The
NGO gave me several calves, which enables me to develop my herd.”
“We prefer aids that are durable, something that can last for a long period. The ponds and wells are
good for us. We like grains as food aid, but they cannot solve our long-term problem. In addition, I see
Page 13 of 31
some people are getting dependent on the food aid, thus not working hard on themselves to secure their
livelihoods.”
“The cash for labor projects are good for us. We hope more NGOs would come to our village and
organize labors to clear bushes or dig ponds.”
In addition to dependence created by food aid, other projects also brought “invisible” negative
impacts to the pastoral communities. Traditionally, the major projects supported by NGOs, such as bush
clearing, pond, and well construction, were conducted by pastoralists themselves. Now the NGOs start the
so-called “cash for labor” projects and pay pastoralists to clear bushes and construct water facilities. This
makes pastoralists unwilling to organize their own labors to clear the bushes on the common rangeland.
They won’t clear the bushes unless NGOs pay them.
The situation for water facilities construction is even worse. Digging ponds seems like a once-for-
ever project. However, without effective and constant maintenance, the ponds are likely to stop
functioning. Traditionally, those people who dug the pond would automatically become the managers.
But now those who dug the pond are just labors, and they are not responsible for maintenance. Without a
responsible managing committee, the effectiveness and durability of ponds are likely to be compromised.
There are more challenges associated with the wells, especially those with electric pumps. There is no
doubt that the wells are more efficient, but once the pumps stop working, the pastoralists will get into
trouble, because they are unable to fix the pump. It happened in two kebeles where the pumps stopped
working, and those who have already become dependent on such water sources had to change their
routine routes and travel long distance to fetch water.
NGOs have a huge impact not only in places where their programs take place, but also affect those
living in Yabello town, the capital of Borana Zone where their field offices are based. As the biggest
employers in town, NGOs offer payment that is much higher than the government. For example, a typical
development extension staff can earn a monthly salary between 1200 and 1500 birr. However, the NGOs
can pay from 200 birr to 500 birr for one day, although most the people they hire are based on a short
contract. Such big difference in payment makes most of the well-educated young people unwilling to
work in local organizations. Some people even gave up their government jobs to join the NGOs.
Another challenge brought by NGOs is that they carry out projects according to their own agenda.
There is a lack of overall coordination of the development efforts and humanitarian aids, which are
largely overlapped. For example, bush clearing will be more effective if it is conducted according to the
seasonal growth of woody plants, and focusing all efforts in the most seriously affected areas are more
effective than doing it in small patches. Right now the government is aware of this issue, but they are
Page 14 of 31
unable to organize these bush clearing efforts because they are run by individual NGOs that are beyond
their control.
3.3. Natural Resources
3.3.1. Rangeland
One of the most important natural resources in the pastoral communities in Borana is rangeland.
Rangelands are usually divided into three categories: qaye, kalo, and mata tika. Qaye is the area close to
villages, usually within 1 km radius. Due to high livestock footprint, the understory herbaceous plant
coverage is much lower than other two types of rangeland. Kalo is the rangeland with fences. Pastoralists
save these lands for livestock consumption in the dry season. In some kebeles with high livestock density,
the kalo is only reserved for calves in the dry season. Mata tika is the major herding area, which are
usually far from the villages. Mata tika is further divided into worra mata tika and forra mata tika. The
former are used for worra livestock that return to the villages every night. The latter are used for forra
livestock far from villages that cannot return overnight.
3.3.2. Water point
The other key natural resource in Borana is water points. Water points, in their natural existence, and
be classified as pond (including crater), well (including borehole), and spring. Pastoralists make use of
different water points in different time of year. In rain season, there is no need of water points because the
water can be accumulated in any small ponds throughout the landscape. Within two to three months after
rain season, pastoralists make use of the ponds. Pastoralists need to constantly maintain the ponds to
ensure the water availability. During dry season, pastoralists need to use the wells.
In total, 174 water points were mapped in the ten kebeles (Table 4). Wachille, Gorile, and Hoboq
have the highest number of water points, while Hiddi Ale, Hirmaye, and Gorile have the lowest.
Page 15 of 31
Table 4. Types of water points mapped in the ten kebeles
Kebele Pond Spring Well Sum
Dambala Saden 14 0 3 17
Dibe Gaya 5 1 7 13
Gorile 22 0 2 25
Hiddi Ale 4 0 2 6
Hirmaye 3 1 8 12
Hoboq 10 3 10 23
Kancharo 7 0 4 11
Magole 5 3 11 19
Sarite 10 0 6 16
Wachille 18 0 13 31
However, the number of water points in each kebele cannot necessarily reflect the water availability.
The travel distance to these water points are another important factor (Table 5). Even in wet season,
pastoralists in Wachille have to travel an average of 14.5 km to get water. This is followed by Kancharo,
Hoboq, Gorile, and Hirmaye, which are all over 10 km. Under normal dry season, pastoralists in
Kancharo need travel 22.5 km to get water. This is followed by Gorile, Hoboq, and Sarite. However,
pastoralists in Wachille only travel 0.8 km because the wells are constructed in the kebele center. Under
extreme dry condition, pastoralists have to migrate to other places to get water. In some cases, pastoralists
travel beyond Borana Zone for water. For example, pastoralists in Hiddi Ale and Sarite traveled to the
Amer tribe territory in the Southern Nations, Nationalities, and People’s Region (SNNPR).
Page 16 of 31
Table 5. Number of water points used in different seasons and associated travel distance
Kebele Wet season Normal dry season Extreme dry season
Number Distance (km) Number Distance (km) Number Distance (km)
Dambala Saden 11 2.8 4 7.8 2 16
Dibe Gaya 5 1.6 6 8.4 2 62.5
Gorile 22 11.5 2 15.5 1 15
Hiddi Ale 4 2.8 1 6.0 1 135
Hirmaye 4 11.3 8 7.9 0 -
Hoboq 10 11.8 11 14.0 2 57.5
Kancharo 6 13.3 4 22.5 1 40
Magole 8 9.5 3 12.3 8 34
Sarite 10 7.0 4 12.4 2 105
Wachille 18 14.5 13 0.8 0 -
3.3.3. Sulula
Sulula construction was implemented as a national strategy in Ethiopia about two years ago. The
word sulula is translated into English as watershed, but its actual meaning refers to the land with fences.
The Ethiopian government requires every kebele to have its own sulula. The objectives are to restore the
degraded landscape and conserve soil from erosion.
In Borana, there are two forms of sululas. The priority is usually given to hilly landscape. Labors are
recruited to change the slope into terrace. In kebeles without slopes, the sulula construction is conducted
in places with serious soil erosion. First, pastoralists fence these areas with spiny or thorny shrub or tree
branches. Then they dig ditches inside the fenced area, and put rocks on top of the ditch. The idea is to
change the current water flow, and direct the water flow into these ditches.
Page 17 of 31
Figure 5. Sulula terrace on the hills in Sarite, Borana
Sulula construction labor recruitment is largely done through government propaganda. Kebele leaders
were first told the importance and benefits of sulula at the woreda meetings. Then they convey the
message to the pastoralists during kebele meetings. The propaganda seemed very successful because most
pastoralists during the focus group indicated that the sulula can conserve land and avoid soil erosion. The
labors to construct sulula receive no payment. Every household will have its turn to work on the sulula.
Every household must send one person for sulula construction, except the disabled. If someone refused to
do the labor, he can be arrested or fined a certain amount of money.
There are about 15 pastoralists on the managing committee of sulula in each kebele. Women are
involved in the management in most cases. Sulula is a fenced area that prohibits livestock access even in
dry season. Pastoralists can only harvest grasses manually in dry season, and they have to apply for
permission from the managing committee. Since every household participated in sulula construction,
anyone can apply for harvesting grass. Anyone whose livestock entered the sulula on purpose or by
chance will be fined at least 500 birr.
3.3.4. Farms
Farming is gaining popularity in Borana. Almost every household has a farm in six out of the ten
kebeles in this study. Hoboq is the only kebele where farming is not practiced. The practice of farming by
individual households must be approved by the kebele leadership. The household head must apply for
fencing a piece of land up to two hectares. The application usually gets approved because once one
household gets the land, the kebele leader cannot reject other applications. In addition, approving the
farms is in line with the government’s plan to settle pastoralists.
Page 18 of 31
In reality, none of the households use the whole fenced area as a farm. Only the central part of the
land is used to cultivate maize, sorghum, or tef, which accounts for less than half of the total area. The
rest part is left as reserved rangeland for the household. Without livestock grazing in the farms, the
grasses can grow very well. There is a sharp contrast between inside and outside of the farms regarding
the growth of grasses. Such a fact makes some pastoralists come to the conclusion that the only way to
stop overgrazing and land degradation is to fence the land.
Figure 6. Fenced farms in Dambala Saden, Borana
It is worth pointing out that farming in Borana is completely rain-fed. There is no irrigation system
for farms at all. Therefore, the practice of farming largely depends on the climate condition in the kebele.
Kebeles situated at a higher elevation are better off due to the relatively abundant rainfall. Pastoralists in
these kebeles reported that the harvest is good, and farming is profitable from them. Sarite kebele is the
only exception, where the elevation is below 1000 m, and the climate is very dry. Despite the poor harvest,
people are still practicing farming because it is relatively close to market.
In Gorile kebele, about 60% of households have farms. This kebele is situated at an elevation of 1500
m, and the rainfall can support rain-fed farming. However, due to the remoteness from major market
centers and poor road, this kebele is a bit lagged behind in terms of practicing farming. However, the
Page 19 of 31
participants reported that there are more and more households applying for land and practicing farming,
and within a couple of years, farms will be ubiquitous in Gorile.
In Kancharo and Magole, only about 20% of households have farms. These two kebeles are situated
in the dry lands with elevations lower than 1000 m. Despite the poor condition, the participants indicated
that more and more households are starting a farm. To them, even minimal extra income will help their
livelihoods. In addition, since at least half of the fenced land will be used as private kalo, they will have
their own grass reserves during dry season.
In Hoboq, none of the households have a farm. This is because of its extreme dry condition. Unlike
other kebeles where the fenced kalos can serve as reserves for dry season because the grasses can grow
well when the livestock pressure is removed, in Hoboq, the grasses cannot grow well even without
grazing. Therefore, they have to take their livestock far away from villages and move frequently to ensure
forage availability. When asked about future, nobody had a plan to start a farm in Hoboq.
3.4. Economic Resources
Economic resources in the ten kebeles, including cellphone signal, road availability, market places,
are summarized in Table 6. There is no electricity in all ten kebeles. However, eight of them have
cellphone signals since 2008, and every household has at least one cellphone. But due to the lack of
electricity, they have to travel to towns to charge phones. The rate is 5 birr/phone/charge. In other cases,
the guards of cellphone towers use the generator to let people charge their phones, while making money
for himself.
Table 6. Summary of economic resources in the ten kebeles
Kebele CellphoneSignal Road MarketPlaceNo. MarketAvgDistance
Dambala Saden Good Yes 4 20
Dibe Gaya No Yes 1 10
Gorile Poor No 3 40
Hiddii Ale Good Yes 3 30
Hirmaye Poor Yes 1 1
Hoboq No No 3 50
Kancharo Poor Yes 3 45
Magole Poor No 2 15
Sarite Poor No 2 27
Page 20 of 31
Wachille Poor Yes 3 20
None of the kebeles have paved road to the kebele center; however, gravel-paved roads are available
for six of them, and there are bus service to five of them. This makes the access to market much easier.
Market places are usually located in towns, held once a week. These places are usually accessible by
bus. The establishment of market places must be approved by government. The scale and trading focus of
the market places vary.
There is no local labor market. However, the labor market created by NGOs is prevalent in all kebeles
(Figure 7). NGOs recruit labors to clear bushes, dig ponds, and build wells. The payment varies in
different kebeles by different NGOs, but on average the pastoralists receive 600 birr/month for working
six hours for four days in a week. The jobs offered by NGOs are highly valued in the pastoral
communities because there is no other way to earn cash. Labors for NGOs were assigned to each village.
About 20 persons in each village could participate. Since everyone wanted the cash for labor, the
pastoralists must discuss who should be given priority. The priority is given to poor people to do the labor.
However, these programs are all temporary. When the programs phases out, the labor market collapses
simultaneously.
Figure 7. Pond construction site in Sarite
Page 21 of 31
3.5. Knowledge Sharing
The weather and rain are the most important information for pastoralists. Traditionally, the elders
predict weather by observing stars, certain tree species, livestock intestine, and listening to birds. This is
still commonly practiced in all ten kebeles. Local people trust such predictions because the accuracy is
high. Pastoralists also listen to radios to get weather prediction. Cellphone is getting more important as a
tool to get information.
Government and NGOs arrange some kebele meetings for knowledge sharing. They deliver
development policy to people, and offer training about education, family planning, security. They also
offer weather prediction, and tell people how to get prepared for drought. They advise people to sell
livestock in advance of drought. NGOs and government work together to arrange workshops to teach
people how to select seeds, use fertilizer, process farm product residuals, and take care of livestock.
4. Community Resilience Discussion
At the household level, pastoralists believe that resilience is about maintaining a decent living
standard throughout time. This is realized by keeping a viable number of livestock for most households.
They equate resilience as being able to quickly bounce back from the loss of livestock.
“Livestock are our savings.”
“As long as we still have livestock, and we are able to maintain our livelihoods.”
“With a viable number of livestock, we can survive the droughts. During the drought, everything was
gone. There was no harvest from the farms. But if we have livestock, we can take them far away for water
and forage. As long as they survive the drought, we survive the drought. ”
“We are pastoralists, and we are born to herd livestock. We cannot compete with other people to
make a living in towns because we don't have those skills. But we do have good knowledge about how to
take care of animals, and this is the key to our livelihoods.”
However, there are a substantial number of respondents indicating that having a diverse livelihood
portfolio is more resilient than merely engaged livestock herding. When mentioning about future plans,
all pastoralists expressed willingness to educate their children and become urban residents. They actually
observed some people moving toward that direction by selling livestock and reducing dependence on the
Page 22 of 31
herding sector. An increasing number of pastoral households are trying to save money in the bank or
invest in other activities. In addition, farming is gaining popularity among the pastoral households.
“Livestock herding is getting increasingly difficult. The drought hits frequently. If I choose to stay
here, there is not enough forage. If I choose to scramble to the few water points available during drought,
the livestock congestion was really bad. Many livestock died from diseases around these water points. So
what choice do I have?”
“I see other people selling their livestock and starting to run their own business in the market. It
seems that they are doing good. Perhaps I will follow them in a couple of years.”
“The NGOs and government development agents came to our village and taught us to farm. It seems
a good opportunity to gain extra income.”
The above quotes explain pastoralists’ contrasting attitudes regarding whether livestock herding is the
key for resilience. On one hand, they understand that the Borana rangelands are unsuitable for other
purposes except livestock herding. Livestock are rooted in their culture, and are able to survive the
droughts. On the other hand, the frequent droughts and encroaching woody plants make livestock herding
much more difficult. Such environmental challenges are the main push factors for pastoralists to leave the
herding sector. In addition, the efforts of NGOs and government development agents to diversify pastoral
livelihoods serve as the pull factor to drag pastoralists out of livestock herding. They provided other
possibilities to make a living, although there have not been tested through time yet.
At the kebele level, pastoralists believe that a kebele with better quality rangeland, good management
strategy, and more infrastructures is more resilient. After the extreme drought in 2011, the pastoral
communities start to design new strategies for conserving rangeland and water. The most common
approach is to fence certain parts of rangelands for dry season grazing.
“The woody plants are encroaching rapidly, and the grasses don’t grow well. We are losing the good
pastures we used to have. We need to conserve the rangeland for livestock herding.”
“We are fencing more rangelands as reserves during the dry season. You see, our village has fenced
the surrounding hills. I think we are ready to fight against the next drought.”
“The government told us to construct sulula. I think it is a good idea to stop soil erosion and land
degradation. We can also harvest forage from the fenced sulula. Our village is planning to construct
more.”
In addition, pastoralists observed the rapid infrastructure development in recent years, and benefited
from these development projects. They believe that a community with good cellphone towers, roads,
Page 23 of 31
wells, ponds, health facilities is more resilient. With good cellphone signals, they can communicate with
each other where the water and forage are available, thus optimizing their herding choices. Roads can
connect them with the outside world, and facilitate disaster relief. The health stations, although simple,
are highly valuable for a place without any medical treatment.
“We can use cellphones to remotely communicate with each other now. In the past, we had to walk
three days to send a message. Now I know what is happening to my herds in the forra camp by calling my
son.”
“We need a road leading to our kebele center so that external resources can be shipped into our
kebele during drought.”
“The health station was good for our kebele. When someone got sick, they could get immediate
treatment. Now it is no longer functioning because there is no medicine.”
4.1. Threats to resilience
4.1.1. Drought
Pastoralists used the extreme drought in 2011 as an example of recent disaster and explain how they
responded. In Dibe Gaya, Hiddi Ale, Sarite, and Hoboq, most households took their livestock to SNNPR
for water and forage. Pastoralists in Magole, Kancharo, and Siqu migrated to neighboring kebeles for
water and forage. However, they could not tell whether those who migrated did better than those who
stayed. Despite better forage and water in SNNPR, the increased livestock density caused lots of
competition, and a substantial number of livestock died due to disease outbreak. Those who stayed in the
kebele received support from some NGOs. Due to the reduced pressure of livestock on water and forage,
their livestock survived the crisis. Pastoralists in Wachille, Gorile, and Hirmaye didn’t migrate far away
for water and forage because the drought didn’t hit these kebeles. However, pastoralists in neighboring
kebeles migrated to their lands for water and forage. Even the Kenyans came to these places.
After the experience of extreme drought in 2011, pastoralists began to adopt new strategies to fight
against drought. Five out of the ten kebeles have divided the rangeland and leave some lands for dry
season only. They fenced more lands as public kalo. Some households started to collect grass from farms
and keep them for dry season consumption. Early drought warning is also helpful because people can sell
livestock in advance.
4.1.2. Bush encroachment
Page 24 of 31
Encroachment of woody plants on open grasslands and savannas has been one of the major threats to
the livelihoods of Borana pastoralists and their ecosystem. In some cases, the increasing woody plants
density and cover has entered into the encroached condition (over 2500 tree equivalents per hectare),
where high value herbaceous forage plants have been significantly suppressed by the proliferation of
woody plants (Oba et al., 2000; Tefera et al., 2007). The densely interlaced woody plants deny cattle
access to the available herbaceous plants in the understory (Gemedo-Dalle et al., 2006). As a result,
pastoralists have to change their livestock portfolio by keeping more camels and small ruminants but
fewer cattle. They are also organized by the NGOs to clear the bushes, although the effect is limited.
Moreover, bush encroachment also served as a push factor for people to diversify their livelihoods,
because herding livestock on the bush-encroached rangelands is getting more difficult. Bush
encroachment is a serious threat in Sarite, Magole, and Hoboq, the three kebeles that are much drier than
the rest.
According to a study by Solomon et al. (2007), all elder respondents in the selected villages
considered the rangeland condition to have declined over time. Progressive growth of bush cover in dry
savannahs is responsible for declines in range conditions. The rate of decline was very fast in the past 15
to 20 years. All the elders noted a decline in the abundance of highly palatable grass species, and an
increase in woody vegetation and bare ground.
Currently, over 70% of the landscape is in poor to fair range conditions. Once established, bush cover
accelerates the decline in grass cover, while the intensification of grazing pressure reduces the fuel load
required for fire to burn the bush cover (Oba et al., 2000). Fire is a key environmental driver that controls
the function of savanna ecosystems (Bloesch, 1999; Hudak, 1999) and performs an essential ecological
role in shaping the structure and composition of vegetation (Laris, 2002; Moreira, 2000). The indirect
consequence of fire suppression is the increase of bush encroachment (Sheuyange et al., 2005).
Due to at least three decades of fire suppression, woody plants have largely replaced herbaceous
plants in a substantial proportion of lands in Borana. The few understory fuel loads (herbaceous litters)
are far from being enough to trigger a fire. Pastoralists have no choice but to cut the bushes with axe.
Some NGOs are sponsoring bush clearing projects by paying the labors. However, manual cutting cannot
solve the problem of bush encroachment throughout the landscape.
4.1.3. Inter-ethnic Conflict
Patterns of land use were altered by political conflicts that displaced the population from larger parts
of the rangelands and compressed them into smaller areas. Persistent inter-ethnic conflicts in southern
Page 25 of 31
Ethiopia have created a crisis in security of customary land tenure in the grazing lands. Inter-ethnic
conflicts have interfered with customary resource allocations by undermining customary institutions for
resource sharing (Tache & Oba, 2009).
According to the focus group discussions, five out of the ten kebeles have tribal conflict with other
ethnicities (Figure 8). In the western part of Borana, the Borans have tribal conflict with the Somalis. In
the northeastern part, the Borans have conflict with the Amer and Konso tribes in SNNPR. In the
southeastern part, the Borans have conflict with those from Kenya. Despite the fact that the major ethnic
group in Borana Zone is Boran Oromo, the Guji Oromo dominates the northwestern part of the zone, such
as Hirmaye. The Guji have conflicts with both Borans to the southwest and Somalis from the east. Since
their rangeland is of better quality, other ethnic groups are trying to migrate to their land, and the Guji
pastoralists must defend their lands. In fact, a substantial proportion of households in Borana have guns,
despite the strict gun control in Ethiopia.
“We (Guji ethnic people) had a gun fight with the Somalis about ten years ago. They wanted our land
because our land quality is good. We had to defend ourselves. The gun fight lasted for about a week.
About a hundred people died from both sides.”
“Cross-border cattle rustling is common here in Hoboq. So every man here carries a gun to protect
his herd.”
Figure 8. Tribal conflicts in Borana
Page 26 of 31
The regionalization policy of the central state after 1991 transferred an area of about one third of the
Borana rangelands and two important wells to the Somali administrative region (Figure 9), fuelling inter-
ethnic warfare between the two pastoral groups (Tache & Oba, 2009). According to the federal law,
regardless of where they inhabit, each ethnic group claimed little parcels of land to be patched up with the
Regional State that they were linguistically associated with. Therefore, the Somalis living in the Oromia
State would still claim to be placed under the administration of the Somali Regional State and vice versa.
For Borana, the effects of the political development was the loss of access to traditional home rangelands
and the key wells, which caused internal competition over the reduced environmental space, generating
dilemma in livelihood responses and creating greater risks to drought and poverty (Tache & Oba, 2009).
Later, Guji zone was also separated from the Borana zone. This further impeded Borana pastoralists’
access to the grazing and water resources.
Figure 9. The original Borana zone disintegrated into three zones
There is a significant contrast between the Borans and Somalis in their perception of land ownership.
The Somali pastoral groups’ rationale for claiming grazing resources of the Borana is perhaps their
apparent perception that they established ownership of land through use of force and occupancy. While
for the Borana, territorial ownership was based on historical rights linked to land for religious pilgrimages
and water points that could not be owned on the basis of force and occupancy alone (Tache & Oba, 2009).
4.1.4. Institutional challenges
Page 27 of 31
In the focus group discussions, some respondents pointed out that with an increasing human and
livestock population, the customary regulations on rangeland management are being compromised or
violated. People easily run into conflicts due to the shortage of forage. In addition, some people took
cattle to the reserved land illegally, at the wrong time of year. These people violated the community
agreement on fencing. Such kind of “tragedy of commons” is especially prevalent in Siqu, which is the
most densely populated area. Water resource management laws are also becoming weaker. It is becoming
weak because the government started interfering by putting pressure on the administrators of the wells,
who are no longer permitted to punish those who do wrong (Watson, 2003).
In face of new challenges such as development intervention, political marginalization, and land
privatization, traditional institutions are getting increasingly incapable and delegitimized. As an
increasing human population began to sedentarize, the traditional resource-use patterns were affected, as
well as the ability to endure crisis. Land grabs and increasing practice of crop cultivation largely caused
the disruption of common property-based pasture management practice in Borana. Uncontrolled land use
expanded since indigenous range land categories lost their functionality in preserving a seasonal grazing
system. In addition, the food aid that is distributed impacts on indigenous coping mechanisms and
contributes to the perception that the indigenous institutions are no longer capable of meeting the needs of
the people given the current pressures (Watson, 2003).
The root causes of compromised customary laws is that outsiders, including researchers, government
officials, and donor organizations, rarely understand the rangeland in the same way as the pastoralists do.
Although a variety of development projects have been implemented to address the poverty issues in
Borana, a large proportion of these attempts typically failed over the past 40 years (Jahnke, 1982; Behnke,
1983; Coppock, 1994; Homewood, 2008). This is largely because most of these attempts failed to attach
the development efforts to the existing ecological knowledge and social structures (Helland, 2000).
Evidence from other contexts also confirmed how well-being can go wrong if the nature of the institution
receiving the aid is not understood by the donors (Ostrom & Gardner, 1993).
4.2. Opportunities for resilient pastoral community
Pastoralists believe that the opportunities to build resilient pastoral communities include:
1) Build more classrooms by community participation so that children can get more education;
2) Learn the skills to manage a farm so they can gradually transform into agro-pastoralists;
3) Organize community labors to clear the bush;
4) Plan for community rangeland management strategy and reserve more rangeland for dry season;
Page 28 of 31
5) Build more sulula to restore the degraded rangeland;
6) Getting more people involved in public affairs and unite the community members;
7) Maintain a viable number of livestock throughout time;
8) Encourage saving and credit cooperatives and save more money in bank.
4.3. Resources needed
In order to build resilient pastoral community, pastoralists hope they can get more support from the
outside:
1) Cash for labor project to clear the bush and construct water facilities;
2) Forage during drought;
3) Food aid during drought;
4) Livestock vaccines;
5) Cash grant for the current saving and credit cooperatives;
6) Additional classrooms;
7) Restocking after drought;
8) Health facilities;
9) Electricity
10) Roads;
11) Cellphone towers.
In fact, the previous and ongoing NGO projects are exactly what the pastoralists need for building
resilient pastoral community. However, most of these projects are what pastoralists are supposed to do by
themselves, such as water facility construction and bush clearing. Rather than organizing the community
labors to dig ponds or clear bushes, they expect the NGOs’ cash for labor projects. Such kind of thought
makes the pastoral communities more vulnerable because they are reluctant to take collective actions for
drought preparation.
At the household level, the humanitarian aid, such as food and forage during drought, also created
dependence. Although a small proportion of pastoralists realized the dependence, most of them are still
expecting more free food and forage. As a result, these households are less likely to harvest forage from
the farm or kalo and store it for dry season.
In addition, the saving and credit cooperatives, which are largely initiated by the NGOs, are also
dependent on the seed cash grant. There is no doubt about the good intensions of saving and credit;
however, if there is no good management about the cash, it will be spent improperly and won’t contribute
Page 29 of 31
to the development of cooperatives. Once the money runs out, pastoralists will be expecting more cash
rather than seeking for resources from themselves.
5. Policy implications
In order to achieve the development goals, future policy must reduce pastoralists’ dependence on
external help. The development efforts should contribute to innovative institutions that are built on
pastoralists’ own motivations to make a change as shown in the list above. It is essential for development
agencies to enhance their capacities to deal with various challenges rather than spoon-feeding the
pastoralists.
In fact, there is already evidence showing that pastoralists are seeking changes from themselves.
Realizing that it is impossible to stop people from farming, pastoralists started to delineate the areas that
could, and could not, be used for farming. This does not mean that the indigenous institutions can solve
all their problems, or that their decisions are enforceable, but they show an ability to use their local
knowledge, make compromises, and design solutions to difficult problems through these institutions
(Watson, 2003). An action-oriented approach has been implemented to build capacity among pastoralists,
which proved to contribute to the quality of life, wealth accumulation, hunger reduction, and risk
management (Coppock et al., 2011).
For development agencies, the greatest challenge of indigenous institutions is their embeddedness in
other aspects of life, but ultimately this may make them a more useful resource for development, as any
problems of development and conservation are embedded in the same broader issues. A more dynamic
view of institutions needs to be fostered, which is more concerned with understanding how the socio-
ecological system is changing and assessing pastoralists’ own capacities to address new challenges
(Watson, 2003).
6. Reflections
The set of questions for generating a community profile is very useful. By going through all the
questions in the focus group discussion, I gained a much better understanding of the overall picture of the
community that I study.
It is important to test the list of questions in one community before applying to all study sites. There
will be different focus in different contexts. For example, in an authoritarian government, the governance
questions can only be asked indirectly. It is a taboo to ask people regarding how to elect leaders. In the
Page 30 of 31
pastoral community, the questions about farming are largely inapplicable. However, the spatial and
temporal distribution of water and rangeland resources is more relevant in the pastoral communities.
That’s why I developed my own questions to investigate how pastoralists migrate in response to the
seasonal availability of resources. In addition, there is little variation for conducting interviews with
pastoralists in the same kebele. They tend to give similar answers to the same questions.
Asking pastoralists to define a concept of resilience is difficult. In their language, there is no direct
translation. They can indirectly define it by describing a desirable livelihood, and the elements in achieve
that goal. Therefore, using a set of factors to describe the concept of resilience is more practical.
References
Behnke, R. H. (1983). Production rationales: The commercialization of subsistence pastoralism. Nomadic Peoples, 14(1983), 3–34.
Bloesch, U. (1999). Fire as a tool in the management of a savanna/dry forest reserve in Madagascar. Applied Vegetation Science, 2(1), 117–124.
Coppock, D. L. (1994). The Borana Plateau of southern Ethiopia : synthesis of pastoral research, development, and change, 1980-91. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: International Livestock Centre for Africa.
Coppock, D. L., Desta, S., Tezera, S., & Gebru, G. (2011). Capacity Building Helps Pastoral Women Transform Impoverished Communities in Ethiopia. Science, 334(6061), 1394–1398.
Desta, S., & Coppock, D. L. (2004). Pastoralism under pressure: tracking system change in southern Ethiopia. Human Ecology, 32(4), 465–486.
Gemedo-Dalle, T., Maass, B. L., & Isselstein, J. (2006). Encroachment of woody plants and its impact on pastoral livestock production in the Borana lowlands, southern Oromia, Ethiopia. African Journal of Ecology, 44(2), 237–246.
Helland, J. (2000). Institutional erosion in the drylands: The case of the Borana pastoralists. In Pastoralists and environment : experiences from the greater Horn of Africa (pp. 19–49). Addis Ababa: Organization for Social Science Research in Eastern and Southern Africa.
Homewood, K. (2008). Ecology of African pastoralist societies. Oxford; Athens, OH; Pretoria: James Currey ; Ohio University Press; Unisa Press.
Hudak, A. T. (1999). Rangeland Mismanagement in South Africa: Failure to Apply Ecological Knowledge. Human Ecology, 27(1), 55–78.
Jahnke, H. E. (1982). Livestock production systems and livestock development in tropical Africa. Kiel: Kieler Wissenschaftsverlag Vauk.
Laris, P. (2002). Burning the Seasonal Mosaic: Preventative Burning Strategies in the Wooded Savanna of Southern Mali. Human Ecology, 30(2), 155–186. doi:10.1023/A:1015685529180
Moreira, A. G. (2000). Effects of fire protection on savanna structure in Central Brazil. Journal of Biogeography, 27(4), 1021–1029.
Oba, G., Post, E., Syvertsen, P. O., & Stenseth, N. C. (2000). Bush cover and range condition assessments in relation to landscape and grazing in southern Ethiopia. Landscape Ecology, 15(6), 535–546.
Ostrom, E., & Gardner, R. (1993). Coping with asymmetries in the commons: self-governing irrigation systems can work. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 93–112.
Sheuyange, A., Oba, G., & Weladji, R. B. (2005). Effects of anthropogenic fire history on savanna vegetation in northeastern Namibia. Journal of Environmental Management, 75(3), 189–198.
Page 31 of 31
Solomon, T. B., Snyman, H. A., & Smit, G. N. (2007). Cattle-rangeland management practices and perceptions of pastoralists towards rangeland degradation in the Borana zone of southern Ethiopia. Journal of Environmental Management, 82(4), 481–494.
Tache, B., & Oba, G. (2009). Policy-driven Inter-ethnic Conflicts in Southern Ethiopia. Review of African Political Economy, 36(121), 409–426.
Tefera, S., Snyman, H. A., & Smit, G. N. (2007). Rangeland dynamics of southern Ethiopia: (2). Assessment of woody vegetation structure in relation to land use and distance from water in semi-arid Borana rangelands. Journal of Environmental Management, 85(2), 443–452.
Watson, E. E. (2003). Examining the Potential of Indigenous Institutions for Development: A Perspective from Borana, Ethiopia. Development & Change, 34(2), 287–310.
