The Policy has 1 Vision, 1 General Objective with 5 Specific Objectives, 2 Pillars, 4 Policy Issues with 13 Sectoral Strategies and 76 Implementation Activities.

The Policy acknowledges

1. That ‘pastoral people have their own particular way of life’ (p.15) and that ‘gaps in previous governments’ policies and strategies; the attitude that considers pastoralism as a backward livelihood system, without clearly understanding it; practices that restrict mobile pastoralism/animal husbandry; and absence of development plans that were relevant and participatory have been observed as contributing factors to the underdevelopment of the pastoral areas’ (p.15). This statement is particularly important because (a) it implies that pastoralism is not the opposite of modernization (it is not ‘backwards’), and therefore modernization is not conditional on abandoning pastoralism or radically transforming animal husbandry in pastoralism; and (b) it explains the problems (underdevelopment) of pastoral areas as being a consequence of dismissing or misunderstanding the value of pastoralism as a specialized system, and particularly the value of strategic mobility, which has led to ill-informed development interventions in the past.
2. That ‘90% of the revenue generated from the livestock export in Ethiopia comes from the mobile livestock production in the pastoral areas’ (p.14).
3. That pastoral ‘mobility has social, economic and cultural reasons and consequences that [pastoralists] developed through years of experience which kept them resilient in the face of natural and man-made harsh and hostile environment’ (p.15). Thus, pastoral mobility is key to the resilience of pastoral systems in the environments in which they operate.
4. That ‘The livelihood of the people [in pastoral systems] depends on their resilient social/communal customary organization and administration; and the equilibrium between their natural environment and livestock resources’ (p.15).
5. That pastoral development in the past has been led by ‘policies, laws and strategies … developed in isolation and found in a dispersed fashion’, and has failed to produce ‘a consistent pastoral development policy and strategy that takes the pastoral people’s way of life and ecology into account’ (p.13).
6. That people in pastoral systems ‘have been neglected and forgotten for years’ (p.13), with the result that ‘Pastoral areas in Ethiopia are … adversely affected by limitations in human resource capacity; economic growth; social and infrastructure development relatively more than other places’ (p.15).
7. That restricting pastoral mobility has been a mistake and a barrier to development (p.15).
8. That the ‘absence of development plans that were relevant and participatory’ has hindered pastoral development in the past (p.15).
9. That ‘undermining and failure to recognize customary and communal management systems by government has resulted in degradation of natural resources and decrease in productivity that exposed pastoralists to conflict and other problems’ (p.16).
10. That ill-informed pastoral development in the past has actually hindered progress and created poverty in pastoral areas, with the consequence that ‘the economic, political, and good governance situation in these areas have become more intractable and complex’ (p.16).
11. That ‘land-use conversion … and a development strategy that does not consider [its] impact’ (p.22) has been an obstacle to pastoral development (p.22).
12. That pastoral development in the past has failed to include ‘animal and fisheries centered extension services that address the objective reality of pastoral areas’ (p.33).
13. That pastoral development in the past failed to provide ‘adequate animal health service’ (p.33) or ‘strong early warning and response systems’ (p.33).
14. That water development in the past has led to siltation and salinity (p.39), while ‘water flowing to pastoral areas is exposed to pollution from upper parts of the watershed’ (p.39).
15. That up until now pastoralists have suffered from inadequate access to health services because ‘health services in pastoral areas have not been established in a manner that considers the livelihood and lifestyle of pastoralists’ (p.51).
16. That ‘educational services that take the lifestyle, livelihood, and ecology of pastoral areas [into account] have not been accessible and therefore pastoralists could not gain access to education and generally the accessibility of the service is below the national standard and average’ (p.56).
17. That pastoralists have not benefited from urban development and industry linkages ‘due to absence of all around integrated urban and industrial development activities’ in pastoral areas (p.60).
18. That the building of key infrastructures in pastoral areas has failed to serve pastoralists ‘since these infrastructures are built without considering the lifestyle and ecology of the pastoral people’ (p.65).
19. That a ‘good governance problem is more prevalent in pastoral areas than other places. Public service in these areas is not efficient and effective’ (p.67).
20. That ‘the pastoral people have been excluded in the past from the development process. Furthermore, their livelihood, i.e., animal husbandry has been undermined severely’ (p.71).
21. That ‘indigenous knowledge and customary management practices in pastoral areas have not been recognized and as result they are weakened’ (p.75).
22. That pastoral development in the past has failed ‘to coordinate the customary management with the formal government administration and solve disputes and conflicts in pastoral areas sustainably and create a conducive environment for development and good governance’ (p.76).
23. That pastoralists suffer from a loss of key resources and from conflicts resulting from this man-made scarcity: ‘rangelands are taken for various purposes. This creates discontent in resource utilization and due to other additional causes conflict has been ensued between pastoralists and local and neighboring communities’ (p.76).
24. That in pastoral areas ‘useful and acceptable customary practices … that could contribute to the sustainable development agenda … have not been recognized and could not contribute to sustainable development’ (p.77).

The Policy does not offer a definition of pastoralism

Instead, it says that ‘Since the population depends mainly on livestock for their livelihood, they are referred to as pastoralists’ (p.15) and that ‘The livelihood mainstay and income source of the pastoral population is animal rearing and animal products’ (p.14).

However, by acknowledging that ‘pastoral people have their own particular way of life’, the Policy effectively acknowledges that there is more to pastoralism than simply depending on livestock. Not everyone whose ‘livelihood mainstay and income source … is animal rearing and animal products’ is automatically a ‘pastoralist’. Farmers remain ‘farmers’ in the eyes of the government no matter the amount of livestock they keep in relation to crop farming.

Thus, pastoralists’ ‘particular way of life’ seems more decisive in defining pastoralists than simply the importance of keeping livestock for their livelihood and income. Some information on pastoral peoples’ ‘particular way of life’ is provided: ‘Pastoral people are moving from place to place not only in search of water and grazing as traditionally upheld, but their mobility has social, economic, and cultural reasons and consequences that they developed through years of experience which kept them resilient in the face of natural and man-made harsh and hostile environment’ (p.14). This description acknowledges that, besides the importance of livestock, the particularity of pastoral peoples’ ‘way of life’ (livelihood, lifestyle) has to do with some kind of socially organized and economically functional form of mobility.

Pastoral mobility

The description of pastoral mobility in this Policy hints at its importance for pastoralists’ resilience in the face of a challenging environment. But the wording appears to blend notions of pastoral mobility, and ultimately of pastoralism, that are really quite different. On one hand we have the vignette of mobility as moving in search of water and pasture ‘as traditionally upheld’, and the representation of the environment in pastoral areas as ‘hostile’. On the other hand, there is the emphasis on expertise (social, economic, and cultural reasons … developed through … experience’), and on functionality (‘resilience ‘in the face of… the environment’). In reality, pastoral mobility is never ‘in search of water and pasture’. Pastoral mobility is strategic (an attribute recognized in the AU Policy Framework for Pastoralism), meaning that by the time pastoralists pack up their camp and make their move with the herd, they already know the location of the next camp. The availability of better pasture and water is ensured before moving. Doing otherwise would be a desperate and potentially disastrous move.

As for the natural environment in pastoral areas being ‘hostile’ or not, it entirely depends on the livelihood and production system being used, and on the range of options producers can count upon. The mostly hot and dry lowland environment in which pastoralists operate is no more hostile to them than the cold and wet highland environment is hostile to highland farmers. Natural environments are neither inherently hostile or inherently favorable. People interacting with the environment find it favorable when they are capable of making good use of it, and find it hostile when they are not. Pastoralists specialize in making good use of lowland environments, and therefore, in as much as they can use their specialization, to them such an environment is favorable, not hostile.

The above problems with the very important point that the Policy is making here are easily solved with only minimal changes in the wording: ‘Pastoral people are moving from place to place not in search of water and grazing as traditionally upheld, but as a strategy to maximize the productivity of their herds in the face of highly variable natural conditions. Their mobility has social, economic, and cultural reasons and consequences that they developed through years of experience which kept them resilient and enabled them to thrive in their particular environmental conditions’.

VISION: To see a pastoralist community that is resilient to man-made and natural disasters; that has an improved and sustainable livelihood, environment, and institutions; where democracy and good governance are ensured; and peaceful and inclusive development is realized (p.26) »