Access to natural resources and conflicts between farmers and agro ...

Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift–Norwegian Journal of Geography Vol. 58, 97–112. Oslo. ISSN 0029-1951

Access to natural resources and conflicts between farmers and agropastoralists in Borkena Wetland, north-eastern Ethiopia DEGEFA TOLOSSA & AXEL BAUDOUIN

Degefa Tolossa & Baudouin, A. 2004. Access to natural resources and conflicts between farmers and agro-pastoralists in Borkena wetland, north-eastern Ethiopia. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift–Norwegian Journal of Geography Vol. 58, 97–112. Oslo. ISSN 00291951. This case study on the Borkena wetlands in north-eastern Ethiopia tells, through the voices of the inhabitants, the story of the occupation and management of an area where agro-pastoralists (Urrane) and farmers have progressively settled. It shows how different policy changes and natural disasters have transformed the type of peoples’ livelihoods and land use patterns in the wetland. It tells the history of relationships between smallholder peasants, irrigation farmers, commercial farms, and the Urrane, where conflicts as well as collaboration developed, and it shows how different stakeholders behave and consider their own situation. The study also reveals that development intervention by World Vision Ethiopia (WVE) had mixed impact on peoples’ livelihoods in the wetland: sedentary peasants have benefited while the Urrane have been adversely affected. The main issue is the marginalization of pastoralists, with the denial of their traditional land use rights by three successive regimes and administrations. Any solution to the cohabitation of the different groups and livelihoods will have to address the issue of land rights for the pastoralists and promote the fair participation of all stakeholders in the future management of the wetlands. Good governance and the competence of the state actors at local levels are the crucial issues for the realization of the suggested solutions. Keywords: conflict, livelihood, peasant, resource, Urrane Degefa Tolossa Degaga, Department of Geography, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NO-7491 Trondheim, Norway, and Institute of Development Research, Addis Ababa University, P.O. Box 1176, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. E-mail: [email protected]

Introduction Borkena wetland was a common property area where resources were mainly used by pastoralists for livestock grazing before the introduction of permanent settlements and the beginning of crop cultivation. Today, the wetland provides livelihoods for groups of people making their subsistence from four farming systems: sedentary mixed farming, agro-pastoralism, small-scale irrigation cooperative farming, and commercial farming. A number of natural and human-related processes and events have contributed to the emergence of the currently prevailing livelihood systems and the land use patterns in the Borkena wetland of Garbi Messana, the study site, situated immediately north-west of Kammisse (Fig. 1). The natural capital, particularly land and water resources, is shared and competed for by those depending on the four livelihood systems. Resource use conflict among these stakeholders is induced by several interrelated factors. First, the population using these land resources has been growing fast,1 while the resource basis has either remained the same or even declined because of high pressure and overutilization. Second, people working in each farming system wish to utilize the existing resources in the way that is suitable for their own livelihood, without considering the use right of others. Third, government policies during successive regimes have disfavoured some systems. During the Imperial period, the Derg regime, and even the current government, policies have discouraged pastoralism and favoured sedentarization. Likewise, renting out pasturelands that are communally used by subsistence farmers and pastoralists to the commercial farmers is incompatible with the livelihoods of the subsistence econo-

mies. Fourth, an attempt to bring about an efficient use of both land and water in the wetland by constructing a dyke has been a remarkable initiative from the point of view of sedentary peasants and other farmers, but has adversely affected the livelihoods of the pastoralists in many ways. With this pressing problem in mind, the paper examines the livelihoods of people engaged in varying farming systems, and conflicts over the use of land and water among sedentary mixed farmers, Urrane (agro-pastoralists), and commercial farmers of the Garbi community of Borkena wetland. The insights from the investigation will have implications for promoting better relationships between people with different sources of livelihood, as well as for introducing sustainable land use in the wetland.

Theoretical underpinning Existing knowledge on land resource conflict between groups with different interests (based on ethnic identity, religion, occupation, class, etc.) fall into two types of theoretical framework: the livelihood and the political economy approaches.

Livelihood approach According to Chambers & Conway (1992, 7–8), ‘A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (stores, resources, claims and access) and activities required for a means of living.’ There is a need to look at household economy in a holistic way. Complexity can be understood by examining DOI 10.1080/00291950410002304 # 2004 Taylor & Francis

98

Degefa Tolossa & A. Baudouin

NORSK GEOGRAFISK TIDSSKRIFT 58 (2004)

Fig. 1. Location of the study site in Oromiya Zone, Amhara Regional State, Ethiopia.

four interrelated livelihood components: capital assets, existing context, mediating processes, and livelihood outcomes and indicators (Carney 1998, Ellis 2000). The interaction between these components determines whether a household pursues a sustainable livelihood strategy or lives under vulnerable conditions. Livelihood assets can be grouped under five types of capital: natural capital (land and water), social capital (networks, membership of groups, relationships of trust, access to wider institutions of society), human capital (skills, knowledge, good health, ability to work), physical capital (production equipment, transport, shelter, water supply, energy, and communication), and financial capital (savings, supplies of credit, and regular remittances or pensions) (Carney 1998, Scoones 1998). The main focus of this paper is on an essential form of capital for livelihood directly related to land resources. We attempt to appraise how different stakeholders access land resources and how conflict arises between different groups of land users in competition over the resources. The existing context refers to the trends, shocks and local cultural practices affecting livelihoods in different ways. The extent to which households are vulnerable to various disasters/risks has, in turn, direct implications for asset capitals possessed. The transformation of land use patterns over time, the expansion of permanent settlements, and the

resultant decline in per capita farmland and pastureland are some of the noticeable trends in the Borkena wetland. Equally important are the mediating processes that include actions by organizations (both informal and formal – government, private, and non-government) and institutions (policies, laws, rules, and incentives), which define people’s livelihood options. Mediating processes can enhance or constrain people’s livelihood activities. In a historical perspective, government interventions have clearly demonstrated the extent to which the land use rights and ways of accessing land in the Borkena wetland have been transformed by the tenure policies implemented at different times. Livelihood outcomes can be desirable or undesirable depending on how households combine different forms of capital and are encouraged or constrained by the organizational and institutional frameworks. If the outcome is desirable, then feedback contributes to help build up the five capital assets, and when the outcome is undesirable feedback reduces the asset base (Carney 1998). Both conditions are evident in the Borkena wetland, as is clearly evident from the disparity between ‘the losers’ and ‘the gainers.’ Crop failures have led to deteriorating living conditions among the sedentary subsistence farmers, while an alienation and shrinking of pasturelands, leading to a marked decline in the yield of milk, have resulted in falling


incomes for the Urrane. By contrast, the relatively new systems introduced, i.e. irrigation cooperative farming and commercial farming, seem to take advantage in the short term despite considerable pressure from other systems. Conflict in land use among the stakeholders is, therefore, a clear indication of contradictions between success and failure.

Political economy – marginalization of subsistence economy The political economy approach helps identify some of the discourses related to pastoralism and how this form of livelihood has been regarded as non-viable and a backward way of life by the government actors. Marginalization and social differentiation are central issues for the political economy analysis of resource use and conflict. According to Horowitz & Little (1987, 61), marginalization of pastoralists refers to ‘the compaction of the ruminant herding in areas of low biological productivity, usually areas not yet experiencing agriculture’. Pastoralism retreats to areas of low biological productivity in the face of the appropriation of rangelands by other users, notably agriculturists and ranch farmers. The same holds true for the subsistence food crop producers, whose land is being encroached upon by plantation agriculture that mainly produces cash crops, as well as the establishment of national parks on arable lands. Various studies conducted in Western Africa (Niger, Nigeria and Mauritania) and in Eastern Africa (Kenya, Ethiopia, Sudan, Somalia, Djibouti, and Uganda) have well documented how the subsistence economies of both pastoralists and peasants are marginalized by the expansion of commercial farmers and the national parks (Baker 1975, Baxter 1975, Horowitz 1975, Monod 1975, Ibrahim 1984, Turton 1995, Campbell et al. 2000, Ayalew Gebre 2001, Getachew Kassa 2001). By social differentiation we mean a growing inequality between pastoralists and other groups within regional and national economies, and among pastoralists themselves (Horowitz & Little 1987). Understanding this is important because access to production resources is largely determined either by social structure or by state bias in favour of a dominant and powerful group: ‘The allocation of statecontrolled resources in rural development usually disfavours the physical and social margins’ (Blaikie & Brookfield 1987, 18). Horowitz & Little (1987, 63–64) have identified the main reasons for state and financing organizations favouring agriculture over herding thus: . Donors have recently tended to be less willing to invest in the livestock sector, having more confidence in their technical packages for farmers. . With the exception of Somalia and Mauritania, African administrators tend to be drawn from ethnic groups whose roots are in farming rather than herding, and whose understandings and sympathies are biased toward sedentary lifestyles. . Donors as well as governments share ‘anti-nomad morality’ which provides ready, if false, rationalization to restrict herding.

Access to natural resources and conflicts

99

As explained by Getachew Kassa (2001, 28), Ethiopian pastoralists have been facing many challenges: Government attitudes, policies and development strategies towards pastoralists remained constantly negative. Pastoralism as a way of life was regarded as the most backward production system, and the people who depended on it for their livelihood were seen as inefficient land users, ‘lawless’ and ‘aimless’ wanderers . . . pastoralists were blamed as responsible for the environmental damages to the rangelands in which they live, through bad management, overstocking, and causing overgrazing.

The Urrane in Borkena wetland are among the many pastoral communities who survived the marginalization imposed upon them by various Ethiopian governments.

Resource conflict between sedentary farmers and pastoralists The response from a marginalized group may be silence or resistance. Resistance from marginalized groups puts them in conflict with other groups whose livelihood activities are favoured by government. Land use conflicts between peasants and herders in many parts of Africa have been the direct manifestation of the bias of governments against the latter. Some of the recently documented conflicts include: Central Niger (Longhurst 1986), Mursiland, south-western Ethiopia (Turton 1995), between Mossi (peasants) and Fulbe (herders) in the Central Plateau of Burkina Faso (Breusers et al. 1998), conflict in the Kajiado District of Kenya (Campbell et al. 2000), between Karrayu herders and peasants in surrounding areas in central Ethiopian Rift Valley (Ayalew Gebre 2001), between farmers and transhumant Fulanis in the Koutiala District of the Cotton Zone in Southern Mali (Benjaminsen 2002), and between Guji and Gedeo in southern Ethiopia (Hussein Jemma, unpublished data). A case study by Berhanu Gutema (2001) on the other parts of the Borkena plains (west of the Borkena River that falls in North Shewa Zone) also reveals the existence of ‘traditional’ conflicts between Muslim Oromo pastoralists and Christian Amhara farmers, and even between Muslim Amharas and Muslim Oromos. As Berhanu states, the expansion of farms towards lowlands into pasturelands was the main cause of conflict. Contemporary conflicts over access to and control of land resources in a degraded environment have been exacerbated by state policies, particularly the land redistribution of 1997 in Amhara Regional State. Certain issues make the recent conflict over resources in Borkena wetland at Garbi different from other cases in Ethiopia and elsewhere in Africa. First, the intention of local administrators to modernize the rural economy through the investment of private commercial farms did not take into account the complex social realities in the wetland. This policy action introduced a third group of land resource competitors in the wetland, and hence the multiplicity of the land users with different interests in the same resource can also be cited as one distinct feature of the conflict in the wetland under question. Second, the conflict is not based on

100 Degefa Tolossa & A. Baudouin

ethnic or religious differences, as it appears to have been in other places.

Materials and methods Data are drawn from extensive fieldwork undertaken in Borkena wetland between January and May in both 2002 and 2003. A multiple approach, both quantitative and qualitative, was employed. A formal household survey was conducted for all 70 peasant households inhabiting ‘buden (group) one’ and ‘buden six’ at Garbi community. Interviews were held with the kebele2 administrators and development agents stationed at Garbi. Discussions and in-depth interviews with elderly people enabled reconstruction of the natural history and changes in land use. Discussions were also held with the irrigation cooperative committees and with some of the cooperative’s members. Officers at the wereda (district) and zone administrations as well as sector office heads were also consulted. The case studies of different stakeholders making their livelihoods in the Borkena wetland were purposely selected to demonstrate the living situation of their own groups. Two of the three farm investors at Garbi were selected to show how these farms operate in the wetland. One irrigation cooperative among eight was selected for in-depth investigation in order to examine opportunities, constraints and the relationships among members and with other land users (Figs. 2 and 3). Life history narratives from two Urrane households demonstrate the complexity of the livelihood of the herders and the challenges facing them in the course of their struggle to survive, as well as their interactions with other stakeholders (Figs. 4 and 5). All interviews and discussions (individuals and groups) were conducted by one of the authors of this article, without an interpreter. Knowledge of the local languages of Afan Oromo and Amharic facilitated the face-to-face communication between the interviewer and the informants. While some interviews were short (about an hour), others took longer (three to four hours), and were accomplished through multiple visits. Data regarding the livelihood of the Urrane were generated in different ways and in several steps. It was very important to make clear that the intention was to understand the Urrane living situations, and that the researcher did not represent any government organization. First, observations were made in the pasturelands, in the villages, and the researcher became acquainted with the Urrane in order to avoid suspicion and to develop trust with the community members. The second step was to participate in rituals and become better acquainted with the community members. The next step was to conduct a series of group discussions and indepth interviews with the case-study households. Semistructured and somewhat flexible interview guides were employed for this purpose. The farms operated by commercial farmers were visited several times. Two of the three investors were interviewed on- and off-farm (in town) (Figs. 6 and 7). Conscious effort was made to avoid bias against or in favour of any group. In order to maintain the reliability of data, information on the same issue was generated from different sources (the


peasants, the Urrane, the investors and the kebele administrators), employing different methods (observations, in-depth interviews and group discussions). The main observations and findings are analysed qualitatively. Such an approach enables deeper insights into peoples’ perceptions, ideas, views, and experiences of issues at hand, and enables a more balanced comparative analysis of the livelihood situation of the different stakeholders.

Historical overview Natural resource history A brief overview of the dynamics of the physical environment and social change in Borkena wetland is necessary to situate the conflict in its historical context. The wetland comprises an extensive alluvial plain lying between the Ansokia highlands in the west and the rugged escarpments of Dawa in the east. The plain is dissected by the Borkena River. Administratively, the Borkena wetland (Fig. 1) east of the Borkena River lies in Dawa Chaffa Wereda of Oromiya Zone, Amhara Regional State. Most of the wetland falls in Garbi Messana kebele, the current study site. An elderly informant mentioned that until the 1970s the natural forest in the wetland was quite dense along both the right and left banks of the river. Today, large trees and shrubs are scarce, and there are only grasses and small weeds. The same informant described the density and height of the forest in the area thus: ‘In the old days, in order to identify the whereabouts of their livestock, the herders had to climb the tallest trees or had to walk up the hills.’ An increase in human settlements, both permanent and temporary, over several decades has brought about considerable changes in the natural course of the Borkena River. During the wet season, it was difficult to locate the main course of the river because of overflooding. Expressing his unhappiness concerning the dyke constructed in Borkena in 1990, a key informant stated: ‘Borkena is indeed displaced from its place by human intervention – particularly after it was confined to the single course by the intervention of one organization. I believe it may be because of the curse from the Allha [God] against our act that the crops we grow in the reclaimed fields have continuously failed.’

Human settlements When there were no permanent settlements, a large number of Urrane, both Oromo and Afar, used to come to Chaffa along with their stock during the dry season (the wetland of Borkena is also known by the name Chaffa, meaning ‘swamp land’, among the local people). There were no restrictions or boundaries to their mobility. The land basically belonged to the balabat (landlord) and the pastoralists were only requested to pay a tribute to the landlord in both cash and kind. Maize cultivation was started by a few gabbar (tenant cultivators) working on the land belonged to the landlord, Ras Wolde.3 The farms were initially located east of the main highway to Kombolcha in the foothills where it was



101

Fig. 2. Patterns of seasonal movements of agro-pastoralists between Borkena wetland and other sites in Oromiya Zone.

relatively free from swamps. Then, Chaffa was one of the destinations within Wello region for the people who were displaced by the 1972/73 drought and famine. Most of the Amhara peasants currently inhabiting Garbi are migrants who originated from Borena Saint in South Wello Zone. Apart from biophysical attractiveness of the area due to better availability of land, water and dense vegetation cover, there was a commercial farm enterprise in the nearby area (owned by a European), which attracted labourers. Likewise, some Oromo who came from the Dawe and Bate lowlands were permanently settled in the area after having lost most of their stocks due to the 1972/73 drought. The next landmark event affecting land use and social relations in Borkena wetland was the overthrow of the Imperial Government in 1974. The Land Reform Proclamation in 1975 nationalized all land, and Peasant Associations (PAs) were subsequently formed. Thus, all Chaffa land was put under the jurisdiction of different PAs. Land that could be

used for cultivation was distributed among households who were registered as PA members. As the pastoralists were not registered as kebele members at the wetland site, they were not compelled to pay land taxes and other contributions. As a result, the local administrators and the sedentary peasants began to question the pastoralists’ customary land use rights at Chaffa. This was a turning point because the pastoralists developed a growing feeling of being outsiders during this period. However, there was no explicit policy to prohibit the pastoralists from coming to Chaffa. The Urrane livestock continued to graze freely, with care taken to ensure that they did not damage the crops belonging to the sedentary peasants. Due to indirect pressure, some pastoralists decided to stay in Chaffa and became sedentary farmers. In the past, there were strong symbiotic relationships between the smallholder sedentary peasants and the pastoralists in Borkena wetland. They complemented one another ecologically and economically. Among the main mutual



Fig. 3. Case 1. Kenaw irrigation cooperative.

exchanges was manure for land fertilization by the farmers, in return for which the pastoralists had access to crop residues for feeding their livestock. There was also strong interaction with respect to exchanging livestock products for grains. At the time when there were no or only few restrictions on access to land, the agro-pastoralists used to change their settlement site in the wetland on an annual basis. This was a big advantage for the peasants with regards to land fertilization through manure.

The 1984/85 famine The 1984/85 drought disaster also contributed to the

transformation of land use and settlement patterns in Chaffa. In that year, in addition to the usual pastoralists who migrated to Chaffa, there were also others – the Oromo, the Amhara, and the Afar – who had faced severe water scarcity for growing crops or for grazing their livestock in their own localities (Degefa Tolossa 2002). The wetland attracted a large number of pastoralists and the displaced sedentary farmers, yet Chaffa too has experienced the tragedy of livestock death. Most of the people lost the majority of their stock during the drought. The people’s own initiative in response to this crisis was to settle permanently in Garbi rather than going back. As a result, the population in the community has expanded enormously. The government implemented resettlement and villagization programmes as



103

Fig. 4. Case 2. Kadir – Urrane household head I.

a solution to the problem of drought. In this kebele, villagization concentrated all peasant households into three villages (Garbi, Messana and Kachur). Some of the community members who had resettled in the western part of the country came back after a couple of years, and these displaced people were found to be the most destitute since their original land and homesteads had been taken over by others.

different types of asset to which they have access in order to pursue better livelihood strategies (Carney 1998, Scoones 1998). The livelihood activities of these land users are very much related to the natural resources since changes in these resources, in turn, modify social relations between groups.

Sedentary peasants

Current situations of livelihood systems Peasants, agro-pastoralists and commercial farmers mix

Sedentary peasants in the Garbi Messana kebele4 secure their livelihood from crop production and livestock raising. They have mainly gained access to land for crop cultivation through a series of redistributions during the Derg regime



Fig. 5. Case 3. Dawud – Urrane household head II.

and the more recent Amhara land reallocation in 1997. The peasant’s livestock graze mainly on communal pastures shared with the Urrane. Because of constraints in other production inputs such as farm oxen, seeds and labour, sharecropping arrangements are widely practised among the community members. The average holding size for the 70 surveyed households was 4.5 timad (4 timad = 1 ha) for all

types of land use, and 3.96 timad for cultivated land. By excluding 5 landless households, the average holding size for the 65 surveyed households was 4.83 timad for all types of land use, and 4.26 timad for land under cultivation. The main field crops are sorghum, maize and teff, while papaya, chat (Cata edulis – a narcotic plant), and coffee are cash crops grown by a few households in the community. Under normal



105

Fig. 6. Case 4. Commercial farmer I.

circumstances, peasants grow crops during meher (major) and belg (minor) seasons, the former being predominant in terms of both area cultivated and size of harvest. The most serious complaint made by almost all peasants interviewed was the sharp decline in overall crop harvest and yield over the last five years (1997–2001) in both belg and meher seasons. Drought has been the main constraint for the belg season harvest. Excessive rain that resulted in flooding, waterlogging (in some years) and excessive accumulation of salt in the top soils, as well as drought and pest infestations were identified to be the main causes of harvest decline during meher seasons. No viable non-farm employment opportunities exist to compensate for crop failure for the people of Garbi. People’s coping mechanisms in response to this crisis were quite diverse, including searching for shakal (wage labour) in the nearby areas, youths migrating to Djibouti, selling livestock (farm oxen in certain cases), selling firewood (a venture that has contributed considerably to the depletion of natural forest), and receiving milk cows on the basis of kaya (trust). When asked about what happened to the natural vegetation in the area, an elderly informant mentioned: ‘We have “eaten it up”, because our crops failed during the last consecutive years and our only option to get the means of subsistence has been to carry firewood to Kammisse every second day and come home with foodstuff.’ A small segment of the Garbi community members have had the opportunity to organize themselves into irrigation cooperatives with the assistance of credit disbursed to them

by World Vision Ethiopia (WVE),5 under the Kammisse Area Development Program (KADP) via Dawa Chaffa wereda Agriculture Office. Each irrigation group consists of eight to ten members each having access to at least 1 timad of land adjacent to one another in the wetland. They purchased a small irrigation pump engine on a credit basis. The cooperatives mainly grow onions and sometimes tomatoes and cabbages. As most of the members were previously almost destitute, they are now very satisfied with the income they have been earning from their crops (Fig. 3, Case 1). They pay back the credit following every harvest and the remaining income constitutes the source of livelihood for their family. The non-members have also appreciated the outcome of the irrigation cooperative and are convinced that intensification through irrigation can improve their income as well as their overall livelihoods. This experience is a very positive development. However, the cooperative members came into conflict with sedentary farmers and the Urrane. The clash with the Urrane has been purely because of land use competition as the irrigation cooperatives farms are located at the heart of the grazing lands. Consequently, it has been commonplace for the onion farms to be damaged by Urrane livestock.

The Urrane The Urrane at the Garbi site are Oromo, also known as



Fig. 7. Case 5. Commercial farmer II.

Wuchale (their community name in Bate). They cyclically move between three sites (Fig. 2). The Urrane stay in the Borkena wetland between October and July; the period of stay varies each year, depending on the duration and distribution of rainfall. If heavy summer rain starts in June in the Borkena basin they may leave Garbi early, and if summer ends early they may come in September. In summer, a family splits into two. The women, children and the elderly stay at the Bate site, which they consider as their main place due to the fact that they pay land use tax there and grow some crops there. It is also the place where the elderly settle down permanently. The second group involves the heads and strong youths, who move down to the lowlands in the Awash Valley along with their saa (livestock). Here they meet with another group of pastoralists, the neighbouring Afar, with whom they compete for grazing land and water. In order to avoid severe clashes and livestock theft, the Oromo Urrane develop a friendship known as swahiba with one Afar family who can host them in their community. Even under these conditions many conflicts between the two ethnic groups are reported.

Sources of livelihood for the Urrane For the Urrane, the main source of livelihood is livestock. They believe that the minor crops grown in their main place of residence contribute very little to their income. Crop success or failure is apparently not a great concern to them in contrast to the value they place on their saa. For the Urrane, saa is the source for almost everything: food, cash, insurance,

status, and prestige. It is in the interest of every Urrane household to have as large number of saa as possible. Butter is normally sold in the market to purchase grain and subsistence needs. Unless the amount of butter produced is insufficient to purchase enough grain, they rarely dispose of stock. Even under such circumstances, it is a taboo to use all the money from sales to buy food grain. For instance, if a household sells off an ox with the aim of purchasing food for the family, part of the money must be used to buy at least a jabbi (calf) as a replacement for a head sold. Although there are complaints that the number of saa and yield of milk per cow have declined considerably as a consequence of shrinking sizes of pasture at all sites and pressure on them from other stakeholders, the Urrane have strong ambitions to expand and capitalize on their way of life.

Private investors The relative newcomers among land users in the Borkena wetland are the commercial farmers producing both cash crops and other food crops. As mentioned earlier, this is not a new experience in Chaffa since there was already a commercial farm enterprise, owned by an Italian investor before the nationalization of rural land in 1975, which was converted into a state farm. Three investors have started to farm in Garbi Messana kebele (Fig. 6, Case 4) (Fig. 7, Case 5). So far, they have been growing maize, onions and tomatoes, with the exception of one farmer who grows sugarcane. The main question regarding these farms is whether the land rented was previously vacant or under


use. This is because both the Federal and the Amhara Regional State constitutions (Amhara National Regional State Zikre Hig Article 40 (4 & 5), Constitution of the FDRE Article 40 (4 & 5) clearly stipulate that private investors will be attracted to work in the rural sector in such a way that the land they occupy should not affect the interests of both sedentary peasants and pastoralists. The above discussions reveal that each group of land users intends to exploit the natural resources in the wetlands in ways that are most appropriate to their livelihood activities and strategies. The sedentary peasants constitute the main users of land in the wetland, growing field crops extensively and keeping relatively small numbers of stock on communal grazing lands. They also exploit the natural forests in the hills for various purposes and in different ways. Individuals in this group have use rights on crop lands and they depend on communal resources for pasture, water and forests. A small proportion of the same group has formed irrigation cooperatives aimed at common utilization of irrigation pump engines. The main interest of the agro-pastoralist group is to keep access to land for using the wetland as a dry season pasture. Their survival is practically impossible without having access to the natural resources (pastureland and water) in the Borkena wetland. On the other hand, the commercial farmers are entrepreneurs who seek to profit by utilizing the natural capital (land and water) and intend to take advantage of excess human labour (human capital) in the area. Therefore, the interests of all land users converge on the part of the wetland that is under communal pastures, resulting in shrinking per capita holding. This has undesirable livelihood outcomes for the earliest land users, i.e. the agro-pastoralists and the sedentary peasants, yet at the same time desirable livelihood outcomes for the members of irrigation cooperatives and the commercial farmers (Carney 1998). These two groups have benefited considerably from their undertakings in the wetland. It is these contrasting livelihood outcomes that lie at the centre of the conflict between four groups of land users.

The beginning of real conflicts over land and water Severe land scarcity has been experienced, and the disputes among the wetland users have followed two principal events: the construction of the dyke (1990), and the introduction of commercial farming. The public response to the construction of the dyke for Borkena River has been mixed: positive and negative. The sedentary farmers in the kebele accepted the project and were happy about it from the start because they believed that the dyke would considerably reduce flooding and the effects of waterlogging on their farmlands. It has also enabled some landless households to have access to land. By contrast, the Urrane were extremely unhappy. Instead, they favour the natural course of Borkena since the distribution of water into the plain is important for the growth of grasses and for watering livestock. The construction of the dyke has also hindered the crossing of the river and, consequently, there have been attempts to build bridges at certain points. However, the fact that very large numbers of stock cross


107

over the bridges every morning and afternoon has caused them to break up, and it is beyond the capacity of the project to undertake maintenance on a regular basis. In response to this practical problem, the Urrane have attempted to destroy the dyke in places in order to let their saa swim across the river. The sedentary peasants regard this as unacceptable, and it is one of the critical issues that bring the Urrane into conflict with the local inhabitants and kebele administrators. The second event was the introduction of commercial farms in the wetland, which was against the communal customary land use right of part of the wetland for both the sedentary subsistence peasants and the Urrane. Both were unhappy about the government renting out their grazing land to commercial farmers. The land that the government considered as unutilized is not wasteland in reality. The operation of commercial farmers in the wetland has adversely affected other land users in many ways. First, the land rented to the investors used to be a communal property resource, mainly used for livestock grazing. Second, the hiring of land by private investors has reduced the size of landholdings for the local inhabitants. Basically, the land was under common use mainly because of the drainage problem, but after the investors had altered the situation by introducing better drainage the sedentary farmers started to complain about the alienation of their lands. Third, the opportunity to access a plot of land close to the river for irrigation purposes has been denied since the introduction of commercial farming. Thus, other peasants wishing to organize themselves into cooperatives have been hampered by land shortages, because the possibility of using water for irrigation decreases with increasing distance from the river. It was observed that the capacity of the irrigation engines is quite limited and pumping equipment is unable to convey water over long distances. The local inhabitants suggest that top priority must be given to the poor people in the wetland, instead of to the commercial farm investors. The Urrane regard the commercial farmers as a more serious threat to their livelihood than the local inhabitants. Conversely, the guards on the investors’ farms complain that the Urrane livestock have been the main troublemakers by damaging crops in the fields. The authors witnessed such a clash between the Urrane community and the guard of commercial farmer II when a cow was hit by the guard. According to the herd boys, ‘the cow owned by Kadir was severely hit by a guard on the first day, and the same person cut the teat of one cow belonging to Hassen on the next day. When asked why he hit them, the guard replied: “Not only your saa but you all, the Urrane, will be fully uprooted from Chaffa area forever.”’ This has led to the development of strong hostility towards investors by the Urrane community. They neither wanted to respond through physical confrontation with the investors and their employees nor could they settle the conflict through legal mechanisms. The Urrane avoid physical violence because they constitute a minority in terms of numbers and cannot cope with possible attacks against them by the local inhabitants, including the farm guards. Likewise, they were unable to present their cases to the government organizations concerned, due to the fact that the system does not recognize them as the inhabitants of Chaffa. One Urrane informant asked: ‘How can we justify


our cases in front of legal institutions for the resource over which we were not given legal entitlements?’ As a result, they prefer to pray to Allha to help them remove all evil acts against their saa and their livelihood. For this and other reasons, they observe the abdoye6 prayer ritual every Wednesday. The Urrane complain greatly about their marginalization and social disempowerment by successive governmental policies. One key informant made the point: Land use policies such as the commercial farm [owned by the Crown Prince Asfa Wossen during the Imperial period], land reform and rigid kebele jurisdiction, villagization, land redistributions, and renting out land to investors did not take into account our livelihood that is based on mobility . . . Whenever we had, by chance, an opportunity of meeting with someone from the government side, we were always told that our lifestyle is so backward and hence the government intends to sedentarize us at a fixed place.

This is a clear message that the Urrane are well aware of the problem of marginalization and the denial of their customary land use rights. Berhanu (2001, 9) notes that the ‘central government always favoured settled agriculture’. In Ethiopia, the difficulty in the mobile livelihood system of introducing basic social and economic services, and a perception that the herders are the most destructive agency in the environment through overgrazing and unwise use of land resources have been the two main arguments of the government actors for discouraging pastoral livelihoods (Getachew Kassa 2001). There is also a recent argument that sedentarization has other political driving forces behind it, namely government intention to control people. In short, pastoralism as a mobile way of life has been regarded as a livelihood creating difficulty for effective administration.

Contradictions between Urrane and sedentary peasants In the past, when the population size was smaller, the local inhabitants had good relationships with the pastoralists. Some of the community members have kinship ties with the Urrane because, as indicated earlier, some of the desperate pastoralists became sedentary farmers after losing their saa as a result of drought. However, conflict between the two groups gradually developed, largely induced by land and water use. The conflict between the two groups manifests itself in different ways: . The inhabitants consider Urrane as outsiders with no legal use rights in the wetland since the land where they temporarily settle and the pastureland for saa are within the territory of Garbi Messana kebele. . Compared to their previous situation, Urrane saa are restricted to a very limited area of the wetland because much of the land has been cultivated through irrigation and rain-fed crops. This has created a shortage of pasture, which has direct implications for the incomes and livelihood of the Urrane. . The Urrane communities complain about social discrimination. They do not participate in social institutions such as


kire (burial association), weddings and other religious ceremonies. Moreover, they are not allowed to build their shelters nearby the homesteads of the sedentary peasants. Their settlements must be on open access areas where land has not been allotted to the inhabitants. . Conflict is also developing between the Urrane and sedentary peasants over the use of water from Borkena River. The sedentary farmers are satisfied with the dyke construction project as it enabled the reclamation of land for crop cultivation. Conversely, as mentioned earlier, the pastoralists are interested in the use of the Borkena natural water course as it was prior to the introduction of the dyke. The spreading of the water into the swampy plain greatly facilitates access to fresh pasture and water for livestock. . There is a big conflict over the use of forest resources. The wetland plain is almost devoid of natural forest; in particular, large trees are rarely found. The remaining forest is in the hills, where the use rights are either communal or for individual holdings (1 timad is allotted to each household). A clear discrimination is observed in the use of forests under state property rights. In contrast to the local inhabitants, the Urrane are not allowed to cut trees. This has created a big problem between the kebele administration and the Urrane. One of the kebele administrators said: Urrane come to this community every year and construct their shelters as well as stables for their stock on an annual basis. When they leave us in summer they demolish and sell the woodlots. So, the deforestation that they cause in the hills has been tremendous. We, the kebele administrators, are given public responsibility to protect the natural resources of the kebele, but the Urrane can buy wood from the community members.

For the Urrane, the prohibition is understood as discrimination against them because it seems practically impossible to keep the woodlots for use in successive years (Fig. 5, Case 3).

Local people’s perception of the Urrane In the survey carried out on the sedentary peasants, heads of households were asked about how they perceive the Urrane. The results show the mixed attitudes of the local inhabitants. Their grievances were related to the livestock. More than half of the respondents complained of the competition for grazing land in the wetland: since part of the communal land was put under cultivation, the villagers have faced the problem of insufficient pasture. More recently, the villagers experienced that overgrazing was the result of increased stock population since the 1984/85 drought (Fig. 4, Case 2), while grazing lands have simultaneously reduced in size. It is important to mention that no land is allotted for grazing purposes on an individual basis. Crop damage by Urrane saa was a further issue about which some members of the community have complained. Some peasants were concerned about the possible diffusion of diseases by Urrane stock, which move between many sites during the year and come into contact with other stock.


Harmonious relationships between stakeholders Despite clashes over the utilization of land resources, some positive and complementary relationships exist among the stakeholders. As already mentioned, the livelihoods of the sedentary farmers and the Urrane are very much interrelated. In terms of products, they complement one another, although direct exchange within the community rarely takes place. The important issue is, however, the moral economy – the relationship based on social and economic relations. Central to this is the donation of milk and milk products by the Urrane to the poor peasant households. In this regard, priority is given to households that have kinship with the Urrane, although other community members also have the chance to obtain milk products from the Urrane. The second way that sedentary farmers benefit from the Urrane is by receiving milk cows on the basis of kaya (trust). One out of ten households studied have received cows through kaya from the Urrane community. Kaya is mutually beneficial: for the Urrane, it is a way of dispersing livestock to overcome the problem of grazing land, while for the poor farmers it is a way to gain milk and milk products in exchange for labour and pasture. It is also a common practice among the Urrane to lend bulls temporarily to the sedentary farmers who then tame them for ploughing. A further practice observed is that the Urrane rely on their kin at Garbi in order to send their children to school in September. They do this because, in most cases, it is too early for them to move to Garbi when a new school year begins. One of the main assumptions for encouraging private investment in the rural areas is the creation of employment opportunities for people in need. Seen from this perspective, commercial farmers at Garbi have contributed little so far. Commercial farmer I employed 4 permanent guards, and up to 50 daily labourers during the peak season, while commercial farmer II had 2 guards and some 30 workers who were given the chance to work for the farm for several days during crop harvesting. For the kebele with a population of 1470 household heads7 (a total of over 6000 people), the benefit seems proportionately quite insignificant. It is important to note that at least one member of each household seeks non-farm employment because poverty is on the increase. Various factors may explain their inability to create jobs as much as expected. One factor may be that the farms are still in their initial stages. Second, there is much demand for employment from both rural and urban people. The fact that one of the commercial farmers mostly brings labourers from Kammisse town has undermined the expectations of the local people. Third, and closely related to the second factor, is the extremely low wage rate paid to the labourers.

Government actors: whose livelihood do they promote? In spite of repeated efforts to interview individuals who were directly involved in renting out land to commercial farmers, it proved impossible to access them. Officials in the next lowest administrative level, Dawa Chaffa wereda, were


109

consulted and group discussions were held. The participants were two members from the wereda Council and two members from the wereda Agriculture Office. According to the informants, the main land use and land cover type in the wereda are arable land (both for seasonal and perennial crops), forest lands, swamps, state farms, and barren (unused) lands. Consensus could not be reached between the participants regarding the scarcity of land in the wereda. However, 3570 ha of land, the largest proportion said to be found in the Borkena wetland, was identified as the land that could be developed through irrigation. One of the respondents indicated: It has become clear that smallholder peasants could not make a viable livelihood from Chaffa, as they faced crop failure for some years mainly because of flooding and waterlogging. The proper solution seems to attract investors with better financial and technological capacities. The initiatives taken by three farmers around Garbi Messana kebele would clearly demonstrate the possibility of this development.

When asked about the fate of hundreds of poor peasants living there, the immediate response was: ‘They can be employed in the agro-industries to be carried out in the area.’ This seems overambitious and unrealizable. Regarding the Urrane, the officials have not come up with new ideas other than the responses given by other stakeholders in the wetland. It seems that the Urrane are of no concern as the wereda land use plan excludes them. The discussion participants agreed upon the following: The Urrane are coming from the lowlands of the same wereda and Bate wereda, having their own landholding rights at their main place. It is the availability of water and pasture during dry season at Borkena that attracts them. Otherwise, they are not the legal dwellers of either of the kebeles along Borkena wetland. For those who are from our wereda, the administrative structural relations we have with them are at their lowland sites.

The other point of discussion was related to the prospects of the Urrane at a time when most of the pastureland at Chaffa will be alienated to commercial farms: ‘In the short term, we can not prohibit the Urrane from coming to Chaffa. But the gradual transformation of land use by itself can restrict them, which we hope will fully drive them out of the area at the end.’ The officials claim that the government is underway to design proper strategies to ‘develop’ pastoralists. Included among the stated programmes are: ‘Modernizing the livestock sector through reducing quantity and improving quality, introducing pastoralists with fattening stock, and settling them permanently in areas where they can have access to sufficient water and fodder.’ Evidently, some of these programmes are anti-pastoralism slogans, which are meant to sedentarize them forcefully. Thus, it is not surprising to hear some blame levelled against the Urrane from the participants in the discussion: ‘Their stocks overgraze land, their stocks diffuse diseases from place to place, and it is expensive to give veterinary services since their stock share the limited budget of the wereda agriculture office, particularly those who come from the Bate Wereda.’ The land users in Borkena wetland demonstrated a clear economic and social differentiation among different groups.


The newcomers were found to be better off in terms of their economic well-being than those who have been in the wetland for decades. The assertion by Blaikie & Brookfield (1987) that ‘governments lend their powers to the most powerful group’ is in the line with what has happened to the natural resources utilization in the Borkena wetland. The financial and technical capabilities enabled the commercial farmers to access land in the wetland. The Ethiopian government policies and actions under different regimes have excluded the pastoral societies. The denial of the customary pasture land use rights to the Urrane is a good example of this reality. The claim made in some official documents of putting the pastoralists at the focus of development has never gone beyond rhetoric. This is because the local practices are very inconsistent, even with the constitutional provisions. The relatively recent intervention of WVE in rehabilitation activities and its involvement in development activities today has not recognized the livelihood of the agro-pastoralists in the wetland under study. Finally, it is important to mention the position of WVE concerning resource conflict. Although their intervention programmes disregard the pastoral communities at this specific site, the initial objective of dyke construction for Borkena River was to alleviate the problem of flooding and waterlogging, thereby minimizing the problems of land scarcity for smallholder peasants. WVE is wholly discontented with the idea of renting out land to commercial farmers.

Concluding remarks The livelihood and the political economy frameworks help explain the empirical observations in a complementary way. The livelihood approach enables understanding of the complex livelihoods as explained by the interplay between rapid population growth, drought and famine, change in people’s access to and control of resources, and many changes brought about by government and NGO interventions. In historical perspective, the state and society relationships clearly reveal that people with one form of livelihood (the agro-pastoralists) have been marginalized with the view to enhancing the other forms of livelihood (farmers). All Ethiopian governments have been authoritarian in nature, having negative attitudes towards mobile forms of livelihood, and hence their actors at local level have attempted forceful sedentarization of the pastoralist societies. Thus, the political economy approach reveals the negative role played by external actors, particularly government and NGO actors, in the aggravation of the conflict over resources. This article demonstrates that different groups of people currently attempting to secure means of livelihood in the Borkena wetlands are in conflict over resources, particularly land and water. This is because the resources have become scarce in relation to the rapidly growing number of users, as well as the increase in the diversity of land use types. Among the main driving forces for the changes have been population increase, recurrent droughts and famines, government policy changes, and NGO interventions. Unlike other conflicts that follow ethnicity and religious differences, these attributes are


marginal in explaining the disputes among land users in Borkena wetland. It is clearly evident who are ‘the gainers’ and ‘the losers’ in the Borkena wetland. The majority of the poor peasants and the Urrane community are ‘the losers’ as a result of the introduction of commercial farms and the irrigation cooperatives. The Urrane are also marginalized by government and NGO interventions. These interventions were claimed to bring about development. The question is, what kind of development were they intended to bring about, and development for whom? Did the government take into account the complexity of the economic and social situation while embarking on the renting out of the wetland to the investors? The answer to the latter question seems to be ‘No’, because the land use history and the current livelihood systems were not considered. Further, the government might have been influenced by its prejudice against pastoralism when attracting the commercial farmers into the pasturelands of the Urrane and sedentary farmers. This policy contradicts both the Federal and the Amhara Regional State constitutions, which clearly state that rural investment should be made in a way that would not disrupt the livelihoods of peasants and pastoralists. An NGO intervention in dyke construction along Borkena River was also one-dimensional, in the sense that the reclamation of land reduces the problem of land shortage specifically for crop cultivation. However, the intervention disregarded the importance of the wetland for the livestock sub-sector. The development initiatives in such a fragile area have to pay special attention to poverty alleviation, by empowering the poorest and the vulnerable segments of the population. Based on theory, as well as empirical material generated from the study, one suggestion may be made as to how to cope with or modify the existing land use patterns in the wetland. The subsistence livelihoods of the sedentary peasants and the Urrane must be considered seriously, and it is possible to develop them simultaneously by fostering harmonious relationships between the two groups. Apart from securing access to land, sedentary peasants need support in terms of other capital, such as financial and physical capital. The case of the ‘success story’ of irrigation cooperatives provides a good example of how the livelihoods of peasants can be improved. The main demand of the Urrane is their recognition as legal users of the wetland. With regard to staying there for the longer part of the year, it is important to negotiate with them to become kebele members. This would, to some extent, erase their feelings of being marginalized by both the government and the sedentary peasants. All matters that discriminate against them at community level should be eliminated and their social relations with the other actors should be maintained. By doing so, it would be possible gradually to involve them in activities that would enhance their human capital, such as educating children, utilizing existing health facilities, and improving their nutritional situation, thus helping to improve their livelihoods. It is worth remembering that the events leading to the deterioration of the Urrane livelihood, such as the loss of pastures or the denial of their rights as land users, happened at particular times: it was either when the socio-political situation was disturbed or during famines that successive



governments seized the opportunity to dispossess the pastoralists further. The main problem concerns the rights of the Urrane. If any solution is to be found which takes the Urrane traditional rights seriously, the most pressing task for the government would be to recognize the particular status of pastoralists and to give them formal rights of land use in their traditional range lands. This requires more than sparse rhetorical declarations in some official texts, it requires practical measures and follow-up at all administrative levels. It also requires solutions to the pastoralists’ geographically divided administrative membership, and securing access to basic social and economic services. The realization of this depends above all on the competence and understanding of the local government actors, who in most cases try to implement policies as they understand them rather than as intended by the rural policies. Even if the Urrane situation improves, there is still the issue of the management of the wetland areas where several groups of inhabitants have to live together. It is not advisable to expel any group of the population from the area to the benefit of others. In the short term, commercial farming in Borkena wetland cannot ensure sound development. Any group should be allowed access to resources in the wetlands for its survival and development without damaging the livelihood of any other group. This requires fair participation by each category of stakeholders. Therefore, all stakeholders being granted land rights of occupancy or use must be associated with the management of the particular ecosystem of the wetlands. The task of the administration will be to organize and monitor the interactions between stakeholders and their common participation in the management of the natural resources. The NGO operating in the area should work towards seeking solutions, taking into account the diversity of people’s livelihood in the area by avoiding favouring one group at the cost of another. This would help considerably in minimizing the causes of conflict in the Borkena wetland.

Notes 1 While the data prior to the first national census at community level may not be reliable, the changes between the two censuses clearly indicate a significant expansion of the population in the wetland. The population size of Garbi Messana kebele has grown from 3199 in 1984 to 4836 in 1994. This gives an annual average growth rate of 3.4%, a typical growth rate for rapid population growth areas. 2 kebele refers to the lowest administrative level in Ethiopia. The kebele administrators are elected by the permanent inhabitants of the kebele. Their mandate is to manage political, environmental, social, and economic affairs. The administration consists of six positions: administrator, vice-administrator, head of economic affairs, head of social affairs, information secretary, and head of public participation. However, in Garbi Messana kebele the posts of vice-administrator and economic affairs are held by one person. A kebele is divided into several gotts (communities), which in turn are divided into many buden (groups). A buden comprises 30 to 50 households, living in a village. Buden is meant to mobilize peasants in various development activities. 3 Ras refers to one of the ranks given to the nobility during the Imperial Government period. 4 During the Derg regime, PAs were named as rural kebeles. Some readjustments were made under the current government, mainly by merging two or more PAs, such as Garbi Messana kebele which was

111

formed by merging neighbouring Garbi and Kachur. 5 World Vision International is a Christian relief and development organization established in 1950 and working for the well being of all people, especially children. In Ethiopia, World Vision Ethiopia (WVE) commenced its first project in 1972 with a five-year village improvement program in the south-western part of the country. The Kammisse Area Development Program (KADP) was launched in 1990 and is currently one of the 30 ADPs operating across the country. Although most people in Garbi acknowledge the Program’s support, the construction of the dyke to confine the water of Borkena River in order to improve the livelihoods of the poor peasants has received both positive and negative responses. 6 The Urrane community observe two types of prayer: abdoye and yeawure. Abdoye takes place every Wednesday, when they pray for the betterment of their livelihoods. They pray for good health for their saa, better climate, flourishing of pastures in grazing lands, appropriate time of saa impregnation (reproduction), proper raising of calves, and for the health of the community members as a whole. They also use abdoye as an occasion for cursing or condemning the evil acts against their livelihood. Yeawure prayer is held on Sundays, for protecting their saa from wildlife attack, particularly by hyenas. 7 This figure is according to the estimates of the two Development Agents (DAs) working for the kebele. Acknowledgements.—We wish to thank the Norwegian Council for Higher Education’s Programme for Development Research and Education (NUFU) for funding the fieldwork for this research. We are grateful to Siegfried Pausewang for his valuable comment on the manuscript. Hussein Jemma’s comment on an earlier draft of the manuscript is also highly appreciated. We thank Yirgalem Mahiteme for his assistance in map preparation. Manuscript submitted 18 February 2004; accepted 28 May 2004

References Ayalew Gebre, 2001. Pastoralism under Pressure: Land Alienation and Pastoral Transformations among the Karrayu of Eastern Ethiopia, 1941 to the Present. Shaker Publishing, The Hague. Baker, R. 1975. ‘Development’ and the pastoral people of Koramoja, northeastern Uganda, an example of treatment of symptoms. Monod, T. (ed.) Pastoralism in Tropical Africa. Studies Presented and Discussed at the XIIIth International African Seminar, Niamey, December 1972, 187–205. International African Institute. Oxford University Press, London. Baxter, P.T.W. 1975. Some consequences of sedentarization for social relationships. Monod, T. (ed.) Pastoralism in Tropical Africa. Studies Presented and Discussed at the XIIIth International African Seminar, Niamey, December 1972, 206–228. International African Institute. Oxford UniversityPress, London. Benjaminsen, T.A. 2002. Enclosing the land: Cotton, population growth and tenure in Mali. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift–Norwegian Journal of Geography 56:1, 1–9. Berhanu Gutema, 2001. Environmental, social and economic problems in the Borkena plain, Ethiopia. Christian Michelsen Institute Working Paper No 8. CMI, Bergen. Blaikie, P. & Brookfield, H. 1987. Land Degradation and Society. Methuen, London & New York. Breusers, M., Nederlof, S. & Rheenen, T. 1998. Conflict or symbiosis? Disentangling farmer-herdsman relations: The Mossi and Fulbe of the Central Plateau, Burkina Faso. Journal of Modern African Studies 36, 357– 380. Campbell, D., Gichohi, H., Mwangi, A. & Chege, L. 2000. Land use conflict in Kajiado District, Kenya. Land Use Policy 17, 337–348. Carney, D. 1998. Implementing the sustainable rural livelihoods approach. Carney, D. (ed.) Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: What Contribution Can We Make? 3–27. Department for International Development, London. Chambers, R. & Conway, G.R. 1992. Sustainable rural livelihoods: Practical concepts for the 21st century. IDS Discussion Paper 296. IDS, Brighton. Degefa Tolossa, 2002. Household Seasonal Food Insecurity in Oromiya Zone, Ethiopia: Causes. Social Science Research Report Series 26. Organization for Social Science Research in Eastern and Southern Africa, Addis Ababa.

112 Degefa Tolossa & A. Baudouin Ellis, F. 2000. Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries. Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York. Getachew Kassa, 2001. Among the Pastoral Afar in Ethiopia: Traditions, Continuity and Socio-Economic Change. International Books, Utrecht. Horowitz, M. 1975. Herdsman and husbandman in Niger: Values and strategies. Monod, T. (ed.) Pastoralism in Tropical Africa. Studies Presented and Discussed at the XIIIth International African Seminar, Niamey, December 1972, 387–405. International African Institute. Oxford University Press, London. Horowitz, M.M. & Little, P.D. 1987. African pastoralism and poverty: Some implications for drought and famine. Glantz, M.H. (ed.) Drought and Hunger in Africa: Denying Famine a Future, 59–82. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York. Ibrahim, F.N. 1984. Ecological Imbalance in the Republic of the Sudan –


with Reference to Desertification in Darfur. Drukhaus Bayreuth Verlagesellschaft mbH, Bayreuth. Longhurst, R. 1986. Household food strategies in response to seasonality and famine. IDS Bulletin 17. IDS, Brighton. Monod, T. 1975. Introduction. Monod, T. (ed.) Pastoralism in Tropical Africa. Studies Presented and Discussed at the XIIIth International African Seminar, Niamey, December 1972, 1–98. International African Institute. Oxford University Press, London. Scoones, I. 1998. Sustainable rural livelihoods: A framework for analysis. IDS Working Paper 72. IDS, Brighton. Turton, D. 1995. Pastoral Livelihoods in Danger: Cattle Disease, Drought, and Wildlife Conservation in Mursiland, South-Western Ethiopia. OXFAM Working Paper. OXFAM, Oxford.