This activity focuses on promoting life in development centers and preventing a return to pastoralism.

This activity consists of:

• developing a strategy ‘to unify and mobilize people and identify those who prefer to abandon mobility from those who prefer mobility … pastoralists shall be persuaded to voluntarily settle’ (p.49);
• preparing an implementation manual for the ‘commune programme’ to ‘ensure that the programme is implemented from the top to the bottom in an organised fashion’ (p.49);
• conducting studies to identify ‘problems that force people to go back to their previous life after voluntarily settlement’ and take measures to ‘address their needs on the basis of the study’ and support people ‘to go to their settled life’;
• ‘analyzing the experiences of commune programs that have been successful and that have failed; take rectification measures; enable kebele and village leaders to learn from the best practices; and ensure that a balanced and effective work is done in every place’ (p.50).

COMMENTARY

1. Not on the basis of pastoral systems. While the description of this activity refers to ‘those who prefer to abandon mobility’, Sectoral Strategy 4 claims to target ‘pastoralists whose animal resources have been dwindling and totally decimated’ and ‘pastoralists who have not been successful in mobile pastoralism’. None of these situations is the result of a choice. In this scenario, abandoning the livelihood of mobile pastoralism seems driven by necessity rather than by preference. Most people will do this with a desire to rebuild a herd and getting their livelihood back. A policy for development on the basis of people’s livelihood systems should invest in understanding what problems prevent people from getting their livelihoods back, and should aim at addressing their needs on the basis of such studies. Instead, this activity wants to study under what circumstances pastoralists in development centers happen to regain their livelihoods, and sees such circumstances as ‘problems’ that might ‘force people to go back to their previous life’ (p.49). It is clear that life in pastoral systems is assumed to be a burden, a condition people are forced into and that development is supposed to free them from. This perspective is the complete opposite of reality: the loss of a pastoral livelihood, and moving to a settlement center, are conditions pastoralists are forced into by necessity. Development ‘on the basis of pastoralist systems’ is supposed to support opportunities to regain a pastoral livelihood, not prevent them.
2. Second chances. When commune programs have failed, this activity intends to analyze why, and ‘take rectification measures’ in order to make the program work. Why is the same approach not taken with pastoralists ‘who have not been successful in mobile pastoralism’? Why are commune programs assumed to be naturally right – only requiring more effort and more investment – while mobile pastoralism is assumed to be naturally wrong? Why is investment in pastoral development used to help pastoralists out of pastoralism and prevent them from regaining a livelihood in pastoralist systems?
3. A voluntary program? This activity is about the ‘Voluntary’ Commune Program, but its description is transparent about the fact that settling is the preferred way forward while mobile pastoralism is considered an interim stage. Clear examples are statements such as ‘pastoralists shall be persuaded to voluntarily settle’ (p.49) and the intention ‘to ensure that the programme is implemented from the top to the bottom’ (p.49). See also the commentary on Basic Pillar 2.

b. Ensure maximized benefit and participation of the people settled in development centers (p.50) »