by Abebech Belachew

This article was prompted by the questions that Samuel[1] posed to my earlier article on pastoralism entitled “Meles’ Subterfuge”. The previous article was not aimed at coming up with a note constructed to define pastoral development as such. It was all meant to expose Meles’ utter ignorance on the issue. The following is a construct on what I argue should constitute pastoral development. The idea of pastoral development is an emerging conceptualization that has not yet found a single page in the dominant economic textbooks of economic/development discourse.

One cannot conceptualize and reflect on pastoral development without understanding pastoralism. This is crucial. Pastoralism can be understood only when one puts aside those spectacles clouded by [1] the dominant discourse, i.e. the Western discourse that dominates, defines and informs the development discourse today and [2] traditional highlander chauvinism. The dominant Western discourse does not recognize pastoralism, it does not even know it. If at all it refers to it, it is by way of condemning it to extinction as a barbaric form of livelihood or as one Harding put it, “the tragedy of the commons”. Pastoralism is an extremely important issue for countries such as Ethiopia, where you have a substantial section of the population is pastoral and 61% of the landmass is inhabited by them. [2] Conceptualizing development in these countries without considering pastoral development is simply ridiculous. Secondly, the pastoral areas in Ethiopia are well known for their natural resources, fauna and flora. Thirdly, Ethiopia has the second largest livestock per head in the continent. Development, economic growth, social change or in whatever colour it may assume, conceptualizing change cannot simply ignore these demographic dimensions.

Most, including Meles and his gang, agree that social development in Ethiopia begins with taking rural development as the key link. Where development thinkers go to the left and where Meles and the African political elite goes to the right is when we define rural development. For the elite, rural development is just economic devoid of political and social transformation and deals mainly with enhancing the productivity of the farming community. In fact, Meles seems to draw his conception of rural ‘development’ from Stalin’s policy of enhancing grain procurement upon which accumulation for industrialization was made possible. [3] In actual fact, however, rural development must take off from the traditional sectors. [4] In Ethiopia, the major traditional sectors on whose economic activities accumulation is possible are the farming and pastoral communities. This should be the starting point for conceptualizing rural development in Ethiopia. How do we go about it? The following is a modest attempt towards constructing the idea of pastoral development in the Ethiopian context.

We have to underline the fact that there are some serious hurdles to galvanize rural development, hurdles that are affecting the very physical domain upon which both farming and pastoral livestock production depend: nature, the environment. On this regard, climate change poses a serious challenge to rural development as a whole. The challenge posed by climate change compels us to galvanize rural development in the quickest pace as possible and enable as much rural population as possible to be disengaged from traditional production systems as its major means of livelihood. This is crucial. The following three categories advance the idea of pastoral development on the basis of this notion.

1.         Small-scale accumulation: in the immediate, the major strategy of pastoral development must be to enable the pastoral community diversify its means of livelihood. That is the starting point for both social development and economic growth. It is important for the government to recognize that the wealth that is in the hands of the pastoral community is wealth like any wealth and should be recognized as national wealth as such. [5] Once recognition is in place as a national policy, then concrete measures of supporting pastoralists follow. The major support that they need is setting up market mechanisms. Setting up market places where pastoralists can bring their animals to sell and providing animals with water and vaccination against cattle diseases is one simple mechanism that the government can set up. But, this has immense contribution. The pastoral household can accumulate money through the sale of animals and can move on to another trade. The government can encourage pastoralists with business advice to move on to different trades. Not everybody may move on to different trades, but those with hundreds or thousands of animals will really be interested to do so. [6] Pastoral development should not be seen as just the transformation of the pastoralist person. It should take the entire rural setting.

In this regard, the government should first of all come up with a well thought out policy of urban development in pastoral regions. One important element of such a strategy is to absorb the pastoral sector that is moving on to different trades. In other words, it is necessary to prepare the infrastructure required to absorb those disengaging from rural life. Opening of schools and health services as well as other services can enhance the transformation. [7] It is important to realize that changing trade for pastoralists is much easier than peasants as the property that they have, i.e. animals, are exchangeable rather fast. [8] With access to market mechanism, pastoralists with large herds will be prone to sell their animals than stocking them. For them, it is worthy to sell their animals before drought hits. Pastoralists are well aware of this.

Thus, the idea of generating small-scale accumulation for the pastoralists is the key link to pastoral development. However, as we have seen above, this does not go in isolation from other interventions on the part of the government.

2.         Small-scale industry: as mentioned above mobilizing the business community to be involved in small-scale industries such as meat processing, abattoirs, tannery, dairy products and so on must constitute a component part of pastoral development. In the case of Meles Zenawi’s regime that has antagonized literally everyone including the business community, it might not be interested to involve the latter in this endevour. A certain ministry dealing with pastoral development can be directly involved in the sector that the private sector cannot or not allowed to be involved in. Nevertheless, this is one huge sector associated with livestock that an industry can boom.

3.         Animal export:  Ethiopia has one huge potential to develop its external trade in exporting animals and the pastoral community is the ideal target as source for these animals. Export of animals can be one additional source of foreign exchange earnings. [9]

Now, the above propositions are mere constructs. They require the existence of a government that is genuinely interested in building the country and helping its own people. They require a government flexible enough and totally committed to the development of its people; sincere enough to serve them; honest enough to win their confidence. Mele’s government is far from these standards. It is so incredibly stubborn that it persists to reject expert’s advice to ‘prove’ that it is on the ‘right track’. Mele’s government is in no way to be able to generate pastoral development even if it resorts to implement what we outlined above mainly because it has antagonized the pastoral communities throughout the country. Pastoral communities dislike Meles’ neo-colonial approach. His regime claims to have done things that no previous government has ever done: regional parliament, use of their own languages, having their own flag, etc… But, pastoralists know very well Meles’ tactics as well. They know that the Aliseros in Afar, for instance, are only instruments and the real rulers are Meles’ own cadres that are assigned as ‘advisors’. Woyane cadres despise pastoralists openly calling them all sorts of names. Everybody knows that Meles is using a neo-colonial system in which his cadres run the show while the local ‘leaders’ are instruments of his rule. Instead, a peoples’ or popular government could have performed miracles with the wealth that pastoralists have.

Away from development, there have always been parallel systems of governance not only in pastoral communities but also in rural Ethiopia as a whole. This is mainly because the so called ‘modern state’ is too feeble to cover the entire rural areas. As a result, communities are governed more by customary laws than by the statutory laws of the land. The same holds true to pastoral areas. They have always had their own traditional system of governance just like the gadda system among the Oromos. This system of traditional governance is governed by the pastoral indigenous knowledge system that kept these communities going for centuries. They have sophisticated knowledge system of forecasting and protecting the environment that determines the pattern of mobility of their animals. It is this system that maintained the pastoral livelihood system for centuries and those who don’t understand this system, such as Garret Hardin, fail to make mistakes and write about the “tragedy of the commons”.

The future of pastoralism is indeed a subject of discussion and debate. Many have predicted that pastoralism is doomed, they are poor, etc… But, as the pastoralists of East Africa once said, “We are not poor, we are made poor.” Many countries in the Gulf do not produce food but import them and had never been food insecure. Pastoralists appear food insecure because their wealth is not considered as national wealth and that governments have not paid attention to their development. They are rather “made food insecure”.

Samuel also asked me about indigeneity and whether or not pastoral communities constitute indigenous peoples. The simple answer is yes. I understand that indigeneity can be a controversial term and it is not just as far as Ethiopia is concerned but questions have been raised about its applicability to other countries as well. However, so far, the UN as well as the African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights (of the AU) are following a working definition to designate specific communities, who have their own system of livelihood, who want to lead their lives the way their ancestors bestowed to them, have strong ties to their ancestral land but are marginalized in a number of ways, a marginalization that threatens their livelihood system. Both the UN and AU [through the African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights] adopted such working definition and recognize pastoral communities in Africa as indigenous peoples. [10]

by Abebech Belachew

This article was prompted by the questions that Samuel[1] posed to my earlier article on pastoralism entitled “Meles’ Subterfuge”. The previous article was not aimed at coming up with a note constructed to define pastoral development as such. It was all meant to expose Meles’ utter ignorance on the issue. The following is a construct on what I argue should constitute pastoral development. The idea of pastoral development is an emerging conceptualization that has not yet found a single page in the dominant economic textbooks of economic/development discourse.

One cannot conceptualize and reflect on pastoral development without understanding pastoralism. This is crucial. Pastoralism can be understood only when one puts aside those spectacles clouded by [1] the dominant discourse, i.e. the Western discourse that dominates, defines and informs the development discourse today and [2] traditional highlander chauvinism. The dominant Western discourse does not recognize pastoralism, it does not even know it. If at all it refers to it, it is by way of condemning it to extinction as a barbaric form of livelihood or as one Harding put it, “the tragedy of the commons”. Pastoralism is an extremely important issue for countries such as Ethiopia, where you have a substantial section of the population is pastoral and 61% of the landmass is inhabited by them. [2] Conceptualizing development in these countries without considering pastoral development is simply ridiculous. Secondly, the pastoral areas in Ethiopia are well known for their natural resources, fauna and flora. Thirdly, Ethiopia has the second largest livestock per head in the continent. Development, economic growth, social change or in whatever colour it may assume, conceptualizing change cannot simply ignore these demographic dimensions.

Most, including Meles and his gang, agree that social development in Ethiopia begins with taking rural development as the key link. Where development thinkers go to the left and where Meles and the African political elite goes to the right is when we define rural development. For the elite, rural development is just economic devoid of political and social transformation and deals mainly with enhancing the productivity of the farming community. In fact, Meles seems to draw his conception of rural ‘development’ from Stalin’s policy of enhancing grain procurement upon which accumulation for industrialization was made possible. [3] In actual fact, however, rural development must take off from the traditional sectors. [4] In Ethiopia, the major traditional sectors on whose economic activities accumulation is possible are the farming and pastoral communities. This should be the starting point for conceptualizing rural development in Ethiopia. How do we go about it? The following is a modest attempt towards constructing the idea of pastoral development in the Ethiopian context.

We have to underline the fact that there are some serious hurdles to galvanize rural development, hurdles that are affecting the very physical domain upon which both farming and pastoral livestock production depend: nature, the environment. On this regard, climate change poses a serious challenge to rural development as a whole. The challenge posed by climate change compels us to galvanize rural development in the quickest pace as possible and enable as much rural population as possible to be disengaged from traditional production systems as its major means of livelihood. This is crucial. The following three categories advance the idea of pastoral development on the basis of this notion.

1.         Small-scale accumulation: in the immediate, the major strategy of pastoral development must be to enable the pastoral community diversify its means of livelihood. That is the starting point for both social development and economic growth. It is important for the government to recognize that the wealth that is in the hands of the pastoral community is wealth like any wealth and should be recognized as national wealth as such. [5] Once recognition is in place as a national policy, then concrete measures of supporting pastoralists follow. The major support that they need is setting up market mechanisms. Setting up market places where pastoralists can bring their animals to sell and providing animals with water and vaccination against cattle diseases is one simple mechanism that the government can set up. But, this has immense contribution. The pastoral household can accumulate money through the sale of animals and can move on to another trade. The government can encourage pastoralists with business advice to move on to different trades. Not everybody may move on to different trades, but those with hundreds or thousands of animals will really be interested to do so. [6] Pastoral development should not be seen as just the transformation of the pastoralist person. It should take the entire rural setting.

In this regard, the government should first of all come up with a well thought out policy of urban development in pastoral regions. One important element of such a strategy is to absorb the pastoral sector that is moving on to different trades. In other words, it is necessary to prepare the infrastructure required to absorb those disengaging from rural life. Opening of schools and health services as well as other services can enhance the transformation. [7] It is important to realize that changing trade for pastoralists is much easier than peasants as the property that they have, i.e. animals, are exchangeable rather fast. [8] With access to market mechanism, pastoralists with large herds will be prone to sell their animals than stocking them. For them, it is worthy to sell their animals before drought hits. Pastoralists are well aware of this.

Thus, the idea of generating small-scale accumulation for the pastoralists is the key link to pastoral development. However, as we have seen above, this does not go in isolation from other interventions on the part of the government.

2.         Small-scale industry: as mentioned above mobilizing the business community to be involved in small-scale industries such as meat processing, abattoirs, tannery, dairy products and so on must constitute a component part of pastoral development. In the case of Meles Zenawi’s regime that has antagonized literally everyone including the business community, it might not be interested to involve the latter in this endevour. A certain ministry dealing with pastoral development can be directly involved in the sector that the private sector cannot or not allowed to be involved in. Nevertheless, this is one huge sector associated with livestock that an industry can boom.

3.         Animal export:  Ethiopia has one huge potential to develop its external trade in exporting animals and the pastoral community is the ideal target as source for these animals. Export of animals can be one additional source of foreign exchange earnings. [9]

Now, the above propositions are mere constructs. They require the existence of a government that is genuinely interested in building the country and helping its own people. They require a government flexible enough and totally committed to the development of its people; sincere enough to serve them; honest enough to win their confidence. Mele’s government is far from these standards. It is so incredibly stubborn that it persists to reject expert’s advice to ‘prove’ that it is on the ‘right track’. Mele’s government is in no way to be able to generate pastoral development even if it resorts to implement what we outlined above mainly because it has antagonized the pastoral communities throughout the country. Pastoral communities dislike Meles’ neo-colonial approach. His regime claims to have done things that no previous government has ever done: regional parliament, use of their own languages, having their own flag, etc… But, pastoralists know very well Meles’ tactics as well. They know that the Aliseros in Afar, for instance, are only instruments and the real rulers are Meles’ own cadres that are assigned as ‘advisors’. Woyane cadres despise pastoralists openly calling them all sorts of names. Everybody knows that Meles is using a neo-colonial system in which his cadres run the show while the local ‘leaders’ are instruments of his rule. Instead, a peoples’ or popular government could have performed miracles with the wealth that pastoralists have.

Away from development, there have always been parallel systems of governance not only in pastoral communities but also in rural Ethiopia as a whole. This is mainly because the so called ‘modern state’ is too feeble to cover the entire rural areas. As a result, communities are governed more by customary laws than by the statutory laws of the land. The same holds true to pastoral areas. They have always had their own traditional system of governance just like the gadda system among the Oromos. This system of traditional governance is governed by the pastoral indigenous knowledge system that kept these communities going for centuries. They have sophisticated knowledge system of forecasting and protecting the environment that determines the pattern of mobility of their animals. It is this system that maintained the pastoral livelihood system for centuries and those who don’t understand this system, such as Garret Hardin, fail to make mistakes and write about the “tragedy of the commons”.

The future of pastoralism is indeed a subject of discussion and debate. Many have predicted that pastoralism is doomed, they are poor, etc… But, as the pastoralists of East Africa once said, “We are not poor, we are made poor.” Many countries in the Gulf do not produce food but import them and had never been food insecure. Pastoralists appear food insecure because their wealth is not considered as national wealth and that governments have not paid attention to their development. They are rather “made food insecure”.

Samuel also asked me about indigeneity and whether or not pastoral communities constitute indigenous peoples. The simple answer is yes. I understand that indigeneity can be a controversial term and it is not just as far as Ethiopia is concerned but questions have been raised about its applicability to other countries as well. However, so far, the UN as well as the African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights (of the AU) are following a working definition to designate specific communities, who have their own system of livelihood, who want to lead their lives the way their ancestors bestowed to them, have strong ties to their ancestral land but are marginalized in a number of ways, a marginalization that threatens their livelihood system. Both the UN and AU [through the African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights] adopted such working definition and recognize pastoral communities in Africa as indigenous peoples. [10]