The Specific Objectives are enunciated without explanation.

COMMENTARY

1. Whose demands for economic growth? The section laying down the justification of this policy (Factors that necessitate the development of the policy and the drafting/preparation process) makes explicit reference to pastoralists’ demands. Three main points of these demands are highlighted, and their constitutional basis are emphasized and articulated: ‘Ethiopian pastoralists have been demanding a pastoral policy and strategy that [i.] recognizes pastoralism as a viable mode of production … ; [ii.] that takes the livelihood basis, the lifestyle, and ecology of the pastoral people into account; and [iii.] has a government organizational arrangement and working procedure that could effectively implement this policy’ (p.2). There is no reference to a demand ‘for growth and development’. 
2. A promise of pastoral development centered on pastoral livelihood and ecology. The justification of the policy is also articulated under section 2 The need for and what necessitates the Policy. Information provided in this section helps explaining this Specific Objective: ‘the Rural Development Policies and Strategies, especially, clearly indicate that the development trajectory of pastoralists shall be based on the ecology, livelihood basis, and life style of pastoralists … The life style, ecology, and livelihood basis of the pastoral people, shall therefore be central to all our efforts in pastoral development, sustainable peace and democratic system building endeavour’ (p.18). Thus, taking pastoralists’ livelihood system ‘as the basis’ for development in pastoral areas means building development interventions on the livelihood, lifestyle, and relationships with the environment that define producers in pastoral systems.
3. An insufficient and outdated understanding of pastoral ecology and mobility. The understanding of pastoral ecology (in section 1.2.2 dedicated to the Ecology, lifestyle and main livelihood source of pastoralism) is limited to a simple typology with two degrees of availability of water resources: (i) erratic but adequate; and (ii) inadequate or ‘moisture stress areas’ (p.19). Against this typology, pastoral mobility is represented as a necessity in the face of environmental conditions. There is no other reference to pastoral livelihood or lifestyle, or the ways they relate to the natural environment. Pastoralists are represented as captives of their ‘ecology’, and the policy is represented as the action of the government reaching out to save them from the hostile environment (and ultimately from themselves). The policy’s goal of livestock-based industrialization, dwelling as it is in the nineteenth-century dream (in Europe) of emancipating agricultural production from the vagaries of nature, is the logical answer to this scenario. This appears to contradict other sections of the policy which describe pastoral areas as ‘rich in vast virgin fertile land; forest resources; domestic and wildlife resources; natural reserves; vast amount of surface and ground water resources’ (p.14), acknowledge pastoralists’ resilience (p.15), and their remarkable economic performance: ‘90% of the revenue generated from the livestock export in Ethiopia comes from the mobile livestock production in the pastoral areas’ (p.14). It is also at odds with the numerous passages in the policy describing today’s problems in pastoral areas as the result of development interventions based on a view of pastoralism as backwards and unworthy of planners’ consideration (pp.15, 16, 65).

Specific Objective (a) is contradicted by the policy Pillars.

Objective (b): Guide sectoral policies and strategies that have been developed in a segmented fashion, on the basis of the constitution, national policies and strategies, and regional conventions, to be revised in light of the livelihood basis and ecology of pastoralists; and coordinate such policies and strategies so that they will be implemented in cooperation (p.26) »