Volume 10, Number 2 (January 2023):4179-4190, doi:10.15243/jdmlm.2023.102.4179 ISSN: 2339-076X (p); 2502-2458 (e), www.jdmlm.ub.ac.id
Research Article
Existential threats to pastoralism in an arid environment: the fate of Gujii pastoralists in Southern Ethiopia
Mekuria Haleke Guye1,3*, Abiyot Legesse2, Yimer Mohammed2
1 Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Arba Minch University, Arba Minch, Ethiopia
2 Dilla University, Gedeo, Dilla, Ethiopia
3 Bule Hora University, Bule Hora, Ethiopia
*corresponding author: mekuriaguye@gmail.com
Abstract Article history:
Received 25 August 2022 Accepted 27 October 2022 Published 1 January 2023
The pastoralists of Gujii have faced numerous risks, with their pastoralism system facing serious challenges. With the technically inconsistent and timely unmanaged interventions, several pastoral households are facing unreserved challenges. As a result, the future of pastoralists appears to be in great danger. The objective of this study was to investigate the ongoing challenges of Gujii pastoralism, as well as the fate of pastoralists in southern Ethiopia who are suffering from unrelenting drought. Ethiopian Meteorological Agency provided monthly rainfall and temperature data from 1986 to 2016. A household survey was conducted with 340 household heads randomly chosen from the study area to examine the challenges of the pastoralists have been facing. Moreover, a key informant interview and a focus group discussion were employed to collect qualitative data. Each watershed unit held one round of focus group discussions, with an average of 7-10 participants. The coefficient of variation (CV) was used to detect the temporal variability of seasonal rainfall and temperature. To detect trends, the Mann Kendall (MK) and Sen's slope estimator were used to determine the trends and magnitude of the change. Political and tenure insecurity seriously affected the pastoral system in different ways. Autumn and spring had high variability in rainfall, with CV = 48.76% and 32.43%, respectively. Both winter and spring temperatures show a significant increase at (a = 0.1). Climate variability has made the already fragile pastoral households even more vulnerable. Pastoralist’s future would be difficult with all of these problems, and its resilience would be doubtful.
As a result, in order to ensure the pastoral's long-term survivability, the government.
Keywords:
coefficient of variation Mann Kendall
pastoralists rainfall variability
To cite this article: Guye, M.H., Legesse, A. and Mohammed, Y. 2023. Existential threats to pastoralism in an arid environment: the fate of Gujii pastoralists in Southern Ethiopia. Journal of Degraded and Mining Lands Management 10(2):4179-4190, doi:10.15243/jdmlm.2023.102.4179.
Introduction
Pastoralism is an economic system in which people make their living by raising livestock. Due to the nature of pastoralist livelihoods, determining the total population of pastoralists worldwide is difficult. There are approximately 200 million pastoralists in the world (Ajao and Ogunniyi, 2011; IUCN, 2011). Pastoralists use approximately 25% of the world's land area, supporting approximately 200 million pastoralist
households, and produce 10% of the world's meat (Abara et al., 2020). Pastoralists occupy 60% of Africa's land area (Nyangena, 2018), with 50 million estimated to live in Sub-Saharan Africa (Szeptycki et al., 2015; Selemani, 2020). In Eastern Africa, this sector accounts for more than 70% of Kenya's land area and 50% of Ethiopia, Somalia, Sudan, Tanzania, and Uganda (Mellisse and Wassie, 2014). This ranges from 95% in Somalia and Djibouti to more than 80%
in Kenya, 60% in Uganda, and 30-60% in Tanzania
(Ahmed et al., 2002; Little and Barrett, 2006;
Abubakar et al., 2020). Ethiopia is one of the top five Eastern African countries where pastoralism is practiced in vast arid and semi-arid lowland areas (Addisu et al., 2016; Amenu et al., 2017). The sector directly supports 12-15 million traditional herders who live in challenging circumstances in arid and semi-arid peripheral areas (Wassie, 2019). Thus, it is a sector which income generated through the rearing of diverse livestock, often in arid and semi-arid lands (Humanitarian Policy Group, 2009). Despite the critical role of pastoral systems in food security and environmental management, pastoralism and pastoralist lifestyles are under threat around the world (Catley et al., 2014). There are various scholarly hypotheses regarding the driving factors of pastoral waning across Africa. Abbink et al. (2014), for example, identified demographic, socioe-conomic, political, technological, cultural, and/or biophysical forces as impeding the availability and accessibility of pastoralism development in Africa. Similarly, Berhan et al. (2011), emphasized the importance of fierce resource competition and politically charged risks of violent conflict. Moreover, it can also be due to ineffective policy interventions in hastening the decline of pastoralism (Meshesha et al., 2019).
Pastoral development efforts in Ethiopia appear to have gone unnoticed by decision-makers (Dirriba et al., 2020). Pastoralists are politically disenfranchised either because of their geographical location (center- periphery scenario) or because they do not participate in investments or decision-making. It is a routine trend in pastoral areas for government to have little economic and political significance in promoting pastoralists' welfare because they fail to notice pastoralists' political engagement and economic contribution (Teshome, 2016; Fenta et al., 2019). As a result, traditional land and economic management has weakened (Yassin, 2019). The policy that restricted mobility in another way reduced grazing circumferences for livestock (Núñez et al., 2017).
Eventually, there are indications that increasing numbers of pastoralists are falling out of pastoralism each year Tilahun et al. (2017), and more and more people are relying on emergency food assistance to survive. Pastoralism practises in southern Ethiopia, particularly in arid regions inhabited by the Gujii pastoralists, have been dwindling over time.
With current rates of population growth, economic insecurity, and grazing land depletion, achieving pastoral resilience would be difficult. The government's attempt to ensure food security by sporadically providing food items was unsuccessful in ensuring livelihood resilience. So far, provisional action in the productive safety net and other material, technical, and financial measures targeted at guaranteeing food security has tended to boost food- seeking households more than at any previous time in the past. Eventually, all of these issues appear to exacerbate pastoral quandaries, and the future of
pastoralism appears to be in uncertain condition.
Therefore, this research aimed at investigating fundamental challenge facing pastoralism in southern Ethiopia particularly focussing on Gujii pastoralists.
Methods
Research design and approach
The researcher followed an explanatory sequential design where both quantitative and quantitative approach was employed to conduct the research.
Quantitative data were acquired and analyzed first, followed by qualitative data collection and analysis.
The quantitative and qualitative data collecting sequences were established one after the other, and the analysis was combined. Although qualitative data can be useful in ethnographic research analysis on its own, the use of quantitative data in conjunction with qualitative data is intended to aid in the explanation and interpretation of quantitative data findings.
However, this study is mostly quantitative, with qualitative data utilized to support the quantitative findings. The interpretation and discussion of a result from qualitative data, in particular, allows for a more comprehensive refinement of the problem (Creswell, 2007). Accordingly, the socio-economic data, human and livestock population was quantitatively analyzed, whereas information gained from FGD and KII was integrated into the analysis to substantiate the result obtained from quantitative data.
Sampling techniques
Both probability and non-probability sampling techniques were employed for different purposes at different times. Dugda Dawa as a district and Burkitu watershed along the six kebeles under it was purposively taken due to the area is known as the most drought-prone area. Moreover, there are several household heads that are reported to be chronically in diverse social, economic and environmental challenges, which leading pastoralism to final deterioration. For the unit of analysis was a watershed based on locally identified parameters and altitudinal arrangements; the watershed unit was classified into Baddaa (upper), Gomolee (middle), and Gammoojjii (outlet). The watershed constitutes six kebeles.
Considering the geographical arrangements and population size, Deru Danfile was taken as the outlet;
Chame Kura and Baya Gundi were considered as the middle, while Boko Gorobali, Finchawa 01, and Burkitu Magada are considered as the upper part of the watershed unit, respectively. The other justification of how and why this kebeles area selected was discussed in chapter three. Using the Yamane (1967) formula, the sample size was later determined for each watershed unit. Approximately 340 sample respondents were identified using simple random sampling from each watershed unit. In addition, a composite of key informant interviews with 15 key informants was identified based on their experience in
the scenario under study. This includes (5) development agents, 10 (local) officials from different offices having strong ties to pastoralism were consulted at the district and kebele levels. Pastoral households that have lived in the area for a long period of time were purposefully considered for FGD, assuming they have good experience with the challenges of the pastoral community at large. One round of FGD was run at each watershed unit where an average of 9-12 individuals participated in the FGD session.
n = 𝑁
1 + 𝑁(𝑒)
where, n = sample size, N is the population size and e is the acceptable sampling error.
n = 𝑁
1 + 2282(0.05) = 340 Data analysis
Rainfall variability
The variability analysis was a measurement of temperature and rainfall conditions over a given geographic area from 1983 to 2016. The Coefficient of Variation (CV), which is the percentage deviation of rainfall from the mean, is used in the variability analysis. A higher CV value indicates greater variability, and vice versa, and is calculated as:
CV =σ
μx100 (1) where CV= is coefficient of variation, SD is standard deviation, and μ is the mean precipitation.
Variation of rainfall is defined as CV<20, less variability, 20<CV<30, moderate variability, and CV>30, high variability (Salhi et al., 2019; Samy et al., 2019). The coefficient of variation was determined for each month of the year in this regard (1983-2016). The maximum and minimum rainfall, as well as the mean, standard deviation, Skewness, and Kurtosis, was calculated. Finally, using equation 1 above, the coefficient of variation was determined from the given result.
Mann Kendall trend analysis
The trend dimension was determined using the non- parametric Mann Kendall (MK) trend test and Sen's slope estimate (Q), a measure of true linear trend slope (change per unit time period). To determine the trend in a time series, a non-parametric test was applied, which does not alter the results with outliers' data. The MK test is commonly used to detect patterns in weather variables (Degefu et al., 2017; Degefu et al., 2020). Many researchers use the MK test for two reasons. First, the MK technique does not require normally distributed data, and second, the test has a low sensitivity to abrupt breaks caused by inhomogeneous time series (Mishra and Kumar, 2018;
Samy et al., 2019). The null hypothesis H0 is tested
against the alternative hypothesis H1, which assumes there is a trend (the data is independent and randomly ordered) (Karavitis et al., 2011). During the process, data were analysed using XLSTAT software (Version 19.0) and an Excel spreadsheet. The estimation equation and procedures followed is already mentioned in chapter two. The data that was obtained from household using questionnaires were analysed using both narrative and descriptive statistics, mainly percentage and frequency counts.
Results and Discussion
Political history as a pastoral livelihood challenges Before the arrival of the Menilik force in 1896, the Gujii people's whole economic system and governmental administration were intact. Entire agricultural and pastoral regions were freely granted as fiefs to the feudal retainers with the integration of the Gujii into the Menilik Empire (Berisso, 2000). The following is how Gujii elders (Age 78) describe the events that occurred at the time:
"Our forefathers told us that both farming households and agro-pastoralists were forced to become sharecroppers under the emperor's administration." During the Menilik period, we paid taxes regardless of our income."
They believe that the ruling system of the time denied them the right to own land, and that their forefathers suffered greatly as a result. During the imperial regime (Haile Selassie), the politically infringed land holding system abandoned the customary land resource governance system (Desta, 2006). According to local elders during the FGD session, "before the imperial regime's pressure, resources in pastoral areas were used to be administered through their own indigenous institutions; however, later on, land, as well as the resources over it, was confiscated by the feudal lords."
Similarly, the Dergue era was also come to an end after putting them under several troubles. They continue to argue that the Dergue regime's coercive sedentary settlement ignored their mobile nature of livelihoods.
Gujii elders have a tradition of telling the story as
"Mandarri Dargee filannoo jiruu yokiin du'aa ture,"
which literally means the making of sedentary settlement was a choice between life and death." The program eventually ended without making any significant positive changes to the pastoral household's tenure or livelihood (Abara et al., 2020). Pastoralists claim, they went back to their home (to the place they are originally from) and settled immediately after the Dergue regime came to an end in 1991.
During the EPRDF, there were some initiatives and a shift in the government's consideration of pastoral development. Pastoralists have the right to free land for grazing and farming under Article 40 of Ethiopia's constitution of 1994 (Amsalu and Adem, 2009; Gebeye, 2016). The right not to be evicted from the land they own is guaranteed by the proclamation.
According to the respondents, there was a significant change during the EPRDF, and issues such as technical and financial support, animal health, the market, and the school were resolved. However, the subject of land tenure has remained unresolved, and they are all clamouring for the right to own land. For several years, the political history of pastoral communities pertaining to land rights, resource governance, and decision- making has posed a stiff challenge to pastoralists and pastoralism.
Rangeland dynamics
In the context of this paper, rangeland dynamics are narrated in two dimensions: change in the form of rangeland usage and dynamism in rangeland availability over time. Rangeland availability refers to the biological abundance and spatial distribution of pasture species (Andersen, 2011; Abara et al., 2020;
Habte et al., 2022), whereas usability refers to rules and regulations followed in rangeland usage and management techniques. In terms of the first component, 'usability dynamism,' the information obtained from the FGD suggests that pastoralists used to utilize the rangelands communally some sixty years ago. As a result, livestock has the opportunity to circumnavigate a broader region and feed on intact grazing land. These traditions were carried out by allowing herd mobility between Foora (satellite grazing area obviously after moving a long distance) and Ardaa/Qe'ee (grazing area nearby settlement site).
Bulls, heifers, cows, and camels are set to move long distances to the Foora and can graze pasture and access water during the wet season (Abate, 2016). At the Ardaa, lactating cows, weak animals, and new borne are kept around the homestead.
Certain crucial operations must be completed long before the advent of mobility for Foora. That is the Abuuruu practice. Abuuruu is travel purposefully undertaken by locally elected elders (Abbootii Dheedaa) in search of a secure place for grazing.
Abate (2016) noted that Abuuruu is carried out by local communities or on an individual basis. In this research, it was argued, however, that the Abuuruu system is not a communal operation in the traditional sense but rather carried out by locally elected/represented individuals who are usually few in number. According to the response from the key informants, it is a methodical excursion aimed at selectively analyzing the status of rangelands over a small possible distance. It is also done based on the environment's safety from sickness, rustling, a conflict-free zone, and the availability of pasture and water. However, institutional resource governance and communal grazing practices are gradually diminished as a result of land redistribution by authorities at the family level, setting the opportunity for the privatization of enclosures to expand. In addition, to the overwhelmingly increased individualism, inconsistency of rainfall hampered pasture growth which in turn highly tempted livestock production.
Moreover, the unrelenting drought not only significantly limited pasture growth but also modified its utilization tradition.
Pastoralists divide enclosures into communal and private ownership. The difference was in the access system and the size of the enclosure. They responded that communal enclosures are used by all members in the area and are larger in size. It is supposedly administered by elders Abbootii Kaloo (fathers of enclosures) who are appointed by the local community. Private enclosures, on the other hand, are typically owned and managed privately, and their size is also comparatively small. Privatization not only harmed the communal grazing system but also created an imbalance in resource distribution among pastoral households.
The drivers of private enclosure practice vary considerably across the watershed unit. Due to a variety of factors, communally owned land or free grazing areas are increasingly being converted into private enclosures. Pastoralists identified several reasons for the current increase in private enclosures.
The majority of respondents in the outlet watershed ranked climate variability, particularly drought, as the most important driver of enclosure practices, while agricultural expansion was ranked as the least important driver (Table 1). It is obvious that expansion of crop production (agriculture) will not be a problem for an outlet as the area rarely allows them to engage into it. Those living in the middle watershed argue that agricultural expansion and drought are the primary and secondary drivers of private enclosure practices and pasture dynamics in the area. For the pastoralists in the upper watershed unit, the influence from land right insecurity would be very high, while the influence from livestock pressure would be very low.
The responses to the FGD confirm that the mode of pasture utilization is changing over time. For instance, they responded that “previously, Gujii pastoralists used to use rangeland communally.” In due course, grazing land became abundant, grazing circumferences became much wider, and free mobility was possible. However, the grazing enclosure is now becoming the norm as pastoralists continue to practice it in response to pasture scarcity. Nonetheless, the majority of pastoral households' use of grazing enclosures is increasing, limiting free mobility.
Tracking pasture from communal grazing land eventually declines, and access to communal grazing land becomes more difficult. Concerning the probability of pasture in the near future, pastoralists at the outlet and middle watershed units argue there would be a very high probability of scarcity due to climate variability (Table 1). Similarly, pastoralists at the upper and middle parts of the watershed state that tenure insecurity is perceived to strongly influence pasture availability in the future. In fact, increased land privatization is becoming common in areas where crop production is relatively commonly practiced. Thus, hence most of the areas are expected to be converted
into private assets, communally holding grazing areas would probably decrease, and the entire resource utilization customs would change. The 'rangeland availability dimension' is the second aspect of rangeland dynamics. It indicates how much pastureland and pasture species shrink or significantly alter over time. The decline also involves a decrease in the amount of vegetation and production in a given geographic area (Lulekal et al., 2018; Naah and Braun, 2019). The decrease in rangeland is caused by a number of factors. Teshome (2016), for example, ascribed rangeland deterioration to overgrazing, recurring droughts, agricultural development, bush encroachment, and human population pressure.
Rangeland's availability in the research area is in danger of irreversible deterioration. According to the information from KII, rangeland availability in the pastoral areas is threatened by overgrazing, conversion of rangeland to agricultural land, bush encroachment, settlement growth and climate influence. Moreover, during the FGD, an elder stressed that the weakening of institutional resource governance systems was the main cause of the reduction in communally used rangeland. They convey increased privatizing resource-limited accessibility to the pasture in the area and an increased sense of high completion, which in turn is expected to fasten the completion of the scarce resources in the near future.
Table 1. Drivers of the expansion of private enclosures across the watershed.
Watershed Rank for the drivers of private enclosures across watershed units Climate
variability Agriculture
expansion Tenure
insecurity Livestock
Population Pressure Total HH
Outlet 1st 4th 3rd 2nd 84
Middle 2nd 1st 3rd 4th 107
Upper 3rd 1st 2nd 4th 149
HH perception about the scarcity of pasture due to the drivers in the future (NB: VL= Very Low, L= Low, DK = Do not Know, H= High, VH= Very High)
Outlet VH L DK L 84
Middle VH VH VH VH 107
Upper H H VH L 149
Restriction of pastoral mobility
Mobility is frequently used to locate pasture water for livestock and human consumption. Pastoralists in the district travel from an arid to a relatively humid environment during the extremely dry season when water scarcity persists. During the dry season, mobility involves moving from the very arid lowlands of the outlet (Deru) and some parts of the middle watershed unit (Baya Gundi and Chame Kura) to the upper watershed unit (Burkitu Magada). When the arriving livestock population is exceedingly high, and the area of destiny is unable to absorb the livestock population of the unfortunate pastoralist. During a very serious drought hit, like that of 2022, pastoralists even went beyond Oromia regional state and forged their fate in the districts of the southern nation's nationalities and people’s region like (Konso, Burji, and Amaro) and Gedeo zone. However, nowadays, due to sporadic conflicts, practices of private enclosures, and political unrest, free mobility is limited.
Livestock population pressure
The average livestock holding in the TLU area is 14.9, resulting in a livestock size to grazing land in a hectare ratio of 1:10. Excessive livestock production and over the increasing number of livestock has had a negative impact on pasture availability (Figure 1). Overstocking affects not only the physical properties of the soil but also its chemical and biological properties (Fenetahun et al., 2020). Because the majority of pastoralists raise
a large number of livestock, there is a possibility of prolonged intensive grazing, which tends to shorten recovery periods. It is unlikely that range land productivity will increase under intensive grazing.
Although pastoralists are aware of the negative consequences of increased cattle in the area, they rarely attempt to restrict the size of their herds.
According to the information gathered from FGD, Gujii has a great attachment to their animals. They have a proverb, "Horii malee jiruun hin jirtu" meaning
"there is no life without cattle." However, this scenario is improbable because the district's grazing area coverage and cattle population are mismatched with time. Some pastoralists purchase seasonally accessible grazing areas to let their animals graze after collective pastureland failed to supply nourishment for the livestock. That, however, will not be enough to sustain their herds for an entire year.
In this particular pastoral area, horses and mules are less preferred due to their inability to produce considerable economic value (milk and meat) other than for transportation. Camel has the biological ability to tolerate being thirsty for lengthy periods of time (up to three weeks) and can travel lengthy distances without drinking. Goats and sheep are valued by the majority of households (84.2%) because they are sold to meet the household's fundamental economic needs. Pastoralists believe that the number of some livestock groups is rapidly rising, despite the fact that rangeland and pasture are in short supply.
Figure 1. Livestock population. District’s ARDO, 2021.
Climate variability as a driver of pastoral challenge Only two rainy seasons, autumn and spring, have been examined, with the remaining two seasons being dry.
The autumn season lasts from September to November (Belg), whereas the spring season lasts from March to May (Tseday). Autumn had a mean rainfall of 208.94 mm, with low and high rainfall of 52.8 mm3 and 454.44 mm3, respectively. Autumn and spring both have substantial rainfall variability (CV=48.76% and 32.43%), indicating that they have the highest rainfall variability (Table 2). The highest mean rainfall was 360.58 mm3 in the spring, with minimum and maximum rainfall of 177.2 mm3 and 612.85 mm3, respectively. For pastoralists and their livestock, single-season rainfall variability in the form of deviation from the mean and early or late arrival is extremely testing. Variability of rainfall often tends to impact pasture growth and decreases abundance across
different areas (Tadesse et al., 2018). During the focus group, participants claimed that it was clear that post- drought conditions do not allow for recuperation and make it enormously hard for pastoralists to substitute their herds. Poor pastoralists often leave pastoralism after a strong drought hits and participate in non- pastoral activities such as selling charcoal, firewood, and commerce (contraband), while others flee to neighbouring areas in search of daily earnings or food.
Out of the total population in the watershed, about 203 (59.7%) households have tried charcoal production at a different time in the past five to ten years. In the outlet, middle and upper watershed units 57 (67.8%), 82 (76.6%) and 64 (42.9%) households were tried charcoal production in the past ten years. The average monthly temperature in the area ranged from 25.4 °C in July to 30.76°C in February. The spring temperature shows a significant increase with +1.65 at ( = 0.1).
Table 2. Seasonal rainfall variability in Burkitu (1986-2016).
Mon/Seasons Min Max Sum Mean Std. Dev CV
Summer 13.2 182.59 2490.3 73.24 41.140 56.17
Autumn 52.8 454.44 7104.2 208.94 101.90 48.76
Winter .693 126.96 1091.6 32.107 29.735 92.61
Spring 177.2 612.85 12259.7 360.58 116.94 32.43
For all seasons, almost all scores show a positive value, indicating an upward (rising) tendency. At the level of significance of ( = 0.01) and ( = 0.05), both maximum and minimum temperature show a rising trend (Table 2). The country's annual average minimum and maximum temperatures have risen by about 0.25 and 0.1 °C, respectively, over the last 50 years (Mcbean and Ajibade, 2009). The mean charcoal production at the watershed per week is 5.6 sacks. In the watershed, the mean of pastoral households who
are highly and moderately participated in charcoal production were (27%) and (20.3%), respectively (Table 3). Across the watershed unit, the highest average charcoal productions per week were at the middle, with 9 sacks per week, while the outlet relatively had the lowest 4 sacks per week. The mean income from the selling of charcoal in the watershed is 950 Ethiopian birr. However, the total average income from the sale of charcoal is highest in the middle 1,350 Ethiopian birr, while it was relatively lower in the 0
50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 400000 450000 500000
2021 2020 2019 2018
Livestock Population (2018-2021)
Cattle Goats Sheep Donkey Horse Mule Camel Poultry
outlet, which is 600 birr. Majority of the pastoralist who are at the outlet are far from the road and market, which may limit the share of production per week. The information gained from FGD indicates Acacia bussei (Waaccuu) is the most preferred tree species for charcoal production in the study area. There are occasions when pastoralists search for Acacia etbaica, which predominates the upper parts of the watershed, mainly at Burkitu Magada and Boko Goro Bali kebeles. The most common charcoal production method is through setting fire at the foot of the big tree
and letting the tree fall or chopping the trunk and burry where a fire is applied in the manually prepared pit that was covered by soil so that smoke will not come out.
Most of them claim lack of alternative income forced them to practice charcoal. They use donkeys, or girls may carry the charcoal to bring nearby roads, where they eventually sell it to travelers (Figure 2).
According to MoPDE (2004), the pit/trench kiln is used in mountain areas where there is insufficient soil to cover the surface mound kiln, whereas the surface dugout kiln is used in valleys.
Table 3. Charcoal production across the watershed unit.
How you rate the level of charcoal in the past 10 years
Frequency of charcoal making
Outlet Middle Upper Mean
Tot % Tot % Tot %
Very low 2 3.5 5 6.1 4 6.3 3.6
Low 0 0 2 2.4 10 15.6 4
Moderate 14 24.6 12 14.6 35 54.7 20.3
High 29 50.9 42 51.2 10 15.6 27
Very high 12 21 21 25.7 5 7.8 12.6
Average of production /week in sacks/ household (1s=150 kg)
4 9 6 5.6
Average income from the selling of
charcoal per week per household
600 1350 900 950
Figure 2. Charcoal production and selling material.
Pressure on the institutional resource governance system
Indigenous resource governance systems are the skills, attitudes, and cultural qualities that a community develops to assist people and their surroundings to interact in a harmonious manner. During the FGD, the researcher had the opportunity to hear from Gujii elders about their experiences with IEK. Elders responded,
"We have established diversified indigenous environmental knowledge and institutional resource management systems related to our environment." We classify Gujii land and its resources as Woyyuu (sacred) and Faanshoo (unsacred) based on the virtues and principles in Gadaa system. Woyyuu regions are sacred places dedicated to the conduct of many rites and the veneration of supernatural divinity known as Waaqa."
Crop cultivation is prohibited on the land converted to Woyyuu and even the practices of the home garden are prohibited. They did, however, allow for safe grazing for cattle with the instruction 'zero tree cut.' The use of the resource on the land referred to as Faanshoo or profane, is open to all communities with no restrictions (Gemeda, 2019). Furthermore, he has indicated that Yuuba (retired Gadaa leaders) gather in culturally significant locations and ordain the areas, converting profane land into a sacred site. What matters, in this case, is the place and importance that an area that becomes Woyyuu has among Gujii culture, not the procedure that the Gujii community goes through in making the region sacred or profane.
It emphasizes the role of Woyyummaa (sacredness) in resource management. Every Gujii child is taught that Woyyuu is an area that should be preserved and appreciated in perpetuity. It is a region that requires extra vigilance because it is where the highest level of social and ritual ceremonies is performed. As a result, all living and non-living elements like forests, grasses, birds, soil, and water within the sacred region are carefully protected.
In the structure of indigenous resource management, pastoralists claim that their land is classified into Dheedaa(grazing area that pastoralists classify based on certain geographic features (boundaries) where under every Dheedaa there are Ollaa (an area that constitutes few pastoral households). Under each Ollaa there are several Maddaa(an area of grazing which is delineated based on some geographic features and provides the right of access to a particular water well) administered by communally assigned Abbaa Herregaa. Abbaa Herregaa is an individual, most probably an elder, that has a due right to decide the duties and responsibilities of each household head and procedures that should be followed in the watering order and water management system. Abbaa Herregaa gives duties to each household which include scheduling watering,
cleaning wells/maddas, and arranging for the digging of a new well or the search for other wells. Water sources are known as madda in Borana, and pastoralists who use the same madda form a single institutional unit that is led by the Abbaa maddaa (father of the madda) (Boku, 2010). Gujii call this person Abbaa Lagaa/Abbaa Baleessaa. Pastoralists follow a strict indigenous rule known as Seera Marraa fi Bisaanii (Law of Pasture and Water). However, due to various pressures, all of this indigenous knowledge is dwindling over time. Respondent (Age 71) further narrates:
"As a larger community with the highest level of environmental consciousness and a deep connection to nature, we used to have a tradition of teaching our children about environmental values and resource management skills from an early age." This is a moral commitment and a set of principles that we as a community have developed and must continue to follow. However, the pace at which knowledge is shared has slowed in recent years.
Indigenous knowledge is weakening, as do most of its institutional functions."
Respondents provided several reasons for expediting the weakening of indigenous resource governance during the FGD session. Pastoralists categorize the stressors to indigenous resource governance as 'internal' or 'external’ to the system. Internally, stressors such as the slowdown of indigenous knowledge-sharing systems are prominently mentioned. Introduced interventions, religious pressures, exposure to modern education which overlooks indigenous resource governance, and religious influence all play a role in reducing the use of indigenous resource governance. From the response of KII, it was concluded that some of the teachings of religious instructors were presented in a way that emasculated indigenous ideologies. As a result, youth who attend these types of teachings rarely trust the concept of Woyyummaa (sacredness) and the environmental ideals enshrined in it. The power of elders Jaarsa Dheedaa and Jaarsa in Borana, for example, has been waning (Dirriba et al., 2020).
Expansion of agriculture
Livestock production is the backbone of the pastoral household economy in the study area. They get their food either directly or indirectly through milk, milk products, and meat. However, as time passes, fewer pastoral households attempt to cultivate crops as a source of income. Agriculture is a contentious option for pastoralists because agricultural processes are still manually operated and practised on fragmented land.
According to an interview with an agricultural expert in the district, agriculture has contested pastoral life despite its economic contribution. For instance, it limits mobility in most areas with abundant grazing lands. In addition, a few grazing areas were also converted into agricultural lands. The majority of
pastoral households in the area claim that the crop produced was insufficient to feed their household members. According to statistics, the average cultivable land area is 0.5 hectare, allowing them to gain 6.5 quintals per year. However, because the average family size is 8.2 and the dependent family size is 4.1, approximately 4.2 quintals of crops are consumed at home while only a small portion is sold at the market. Moreover, for pastoralists who are not lucky in utilizing advanced agricultural inputs and technologies, the production from fragmented land is not sufficient to substantiate household food requirements. However, the entire crop production kept for consumption would only last one to two months. As a result, for the next few months, the majority of them will be food insecure, and pastoralists will be at a crossroads. In general, despite a few grazing areas that have converted into fragmented agricultural practices, the annual production will not ensure household annual food insecurities.
Bush encroachment
Pastoralists in the study watershed argue that recent bush encroachment has put pastoralism's long-term viability in jeopardy. They claim that the proliferation of bush species caused pressure on the rangeland under each Dheedaa. During an interview, a local development agent stated that over 50% of the area's rangeland had been lost owing to bush impingements in the last 5-8 years. It was consistent with the findings of Abate and Angassa (2016), who claimed that rapid encroachment and invasion of woody plant species was a common form of rangeland debasement in Ethiopia. Pastoralists who have lived there for more than 20 years’ recount how bush encroachment has made pasture usage impossible in their area. Pasture availability dwindled with time, and in some regions, it was completely gone. Pastoralists believe that burning bushes in a systematic manner suppresses the growth of woody plants and eliminates unwanted shrubs. However, local governments have recently restricted the use of fire as a rangeland management strategy. As a result, they were certain that prohibiting rangeland burning was one of the factors contributing to the spread of bush encroachment. African policymakers fail to recognize the role of fire as a management tool in savannah ecosystems (Dalle et al., 2005).
Development agents indicate that there are locally identified intrusions of non-grass and invasive plant species. For instance, Senegalia mellifera (Vahl.) Benth, which locally called as Saphansa Gurraacha has recently increased in the area. In addition, the composition of Vachellia fericiens (Sigirso), Dobera glabra (Garsee) and Vachellia Oerfota (Kophaafa) within the rangeland of the majority of the outlet and middle watershed is increased. During the FGD session, elders revealed that the increase of lately introduced bushes had reduced the abundance of palatable grasses. Moreover, bushes like Sparagus
racemosus Larn (Sariitii) have retarded pasture development. Similarly, Carissa spinarum L.
(Agamsa) and Maytenus arbutifolia (Kom’olcha) are thorny by nature and grazing under it was not often successful. According to estimates, about half of the Borana rangeland is covered by undesirable bushes, primarily Commiphora africana (Lulekal et al., 2018) and increased bush cover by 10%, decreased grazing by 7%, and eliminated bush cover by 90% (Abate and Angassa, 2016). Pastoralists claim due to bush encroachment, some of the herbaceous plant species are in the state of disappearing over time. For instance, Chloris virgata, Cynodon aethiopicus, Cynodon dactylon, Ricinus communis and Acalypha indica are highly threatened species.
Pastoralist claim and the fate of Gujii Pastoralists under enduring threats
The story of Gujii pastoralism's deterioration is more than a hypothesis; it is a synthesis of what makes up the system and a study of a long-running crisis. In reality, future pastoralism exhibits some perplexing pathways with multiple conceivable outcomes. At the micro-level, however, justifying a fluctuating variance will not be sound. This research proposes future pastoral narratives based on the key conclusion of the research since the word 'fate' suggests an ultimate agency that predetermines the existence of pastoralism as a sector in a general and pastoral community in particular. Pastoralism would be transformed in the future if positive and locally applicable policies were put into effect. For instance, accessible health care, markets, credits, technical support, and a variety of outputs can ensure pastoral resilience. However, pastoralists’ would continue to be vulnerable to numerous livelihood stressors as public services and humanitarian initiatives fail to balance the persistent impacts of climate change, political and economic insecurity, and an expanding human population.
Ethiopia could have tried its best to search for every possible opportunity so that pastoralist’s livelihood would have been transformed. For instance, taking use of the country's proximity to Kenya into consideration and using the dry port at Moyale to export animals, skins and hides, milk and milk products would be crucial. Traditional slaughtering methods, discriminatory prices, and a lack of infrastructure to reach inexpensive markets, and cattle diseases all limited the possibilities. As a result, pastoralists have continued to sell their animals to brokers at an unfair price, which will not result in economic development.
The supply of health care, the market, and credit, according to the respondents, have not yet been addressed. Obtaining such services is uncommon, except for people who have solid relationships with local leaders and relatively have the finest financial capital.
In addition to natural and economic challenges, the future of pastoralism is apparently uncertain. Due to various forms of conflict, the majority of inhabited
pastoral areas are progressively becoming a hotbed of common political upheaval. Since 2018, there has been non-stopping conflict between the government and undefined armed groups. The political insecurities aggravated poverty, social instability and declined pastoral safety at large. Furthermore, climate hazard projections have increased the vulnerabilities of pastoral households. As a result of the lack of a productive and market-oriented pastoral livelihood system continued to exist, pastoralists continue to be a backwater of underdevelopment. With all of these threats and ongoing challenges, pastoralists and pastoralism in Gujii are supposed to face an uncertain future.
Conclusion
Pastoralists' livelihoods are completely dependent on their environmental resources, mainly water and pasture. The resource scarcity combined with a top- down administrative approach seriously affected pastoral life. Thus, despite long-term efforts toward modernization and sedentary settlement, pastoralists are insufficient to account for any significant transformation of pastoral life and livelihood. In Gujii pastoral system, increased pressures, either internal or external to the system, continued to decline indigenous resource management institutions. Although there are several factors increasing pastoral exigency, mobility restrictions and expansion of private enclosure are now overshadowing spatiotemporal considerations of pasture and water use. Tenure uncertainties due to the everchanging policy have produced tensions among pastoral households for several decades. Despite the hyped language of reform of pastoralism, thousands of households became desperately impoverished and needed emergency interventions and life-saving assistance. Ample interventions expected to improve pastoral livelihood are not yet fully implemented. With ongoing multidimensional challenges, pastoralist feels they are highly under threat. Several pastoral households that were unable to cope with external and internal pressures were forced to alter their means of subsistence and less favourable livelihood income, while others persevered in pastoralism under a very risky condition. For improved pastoral livelihood, pastoral decision-making must necessarily take into consideration customary institutions. In general, improving formal services that promote pastoral resilience through improving early warning systems, health and market facilities, environmentally sound resource management, population management, and creating a smooth political environment that fits the pastoral system, contributes more than it has in the past.
Acknowledgements
We thank pastoral households who have provided essential information for the research. Similarly, our special gratitude should go to the district and local authorities who have
facilitated data-gathering procedures. Finally, we would like to thank Bule Hora University for providing vehicles and per diem during data gathering time.
References
Abara, M., Komariah, and Budiastuti, S. 2020. Drought frequency, severity, and duration monitoring based on climate change in Southern and Southeastern Ethiopia.
IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 477(1):1-16, doi:10.1088/1755- 1315/477/1/012011.
Abate, T. 2016. Indigenous ecological knowledge and pastoralist perception on rangeland management and degradation in Guji zone of South Ethiopia. The Journal of Sustainable Development 15(1):192-218.
Abate, T. and Angassa, A. 2016. Conversion of savanna rangelands to bush dominated landscape in Borana, Southern Ethiopia. Ecological Processes 5(1):1-18, doi:10.1186/s13717-016-0049-1.
Abbink, J., Askew, K., Dori, F., Fratkin, E., Gabbert, C., Galaty, J., Latosky, S., Lydall, J., Mahmoud, H.A., Markakis, J., Schlee, G., Strecker, I. and Turton, D.
2014. Lands of the Future: Transforming Pastoral Lands and Livelihoods in Eastern Africa. Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology Working Papers, 49
Abubakar, H,B,, Newete, S.W. and Scholes, M.C. 2020.
Drought characterization and trend detection using the reconnaissance drought index for Setsoto Municipality of the Free State Province of South Africa and the impact on maize yield. Water 12(1):1-16, doi:10.3390/w12112993.
Addisu, S., Fissha, G., Gediff, B. and Asmelash, Y. 2016.
Perception and adaptation models of climate change by the rural people of lake Tana Sub‑Basin, Ethiopia.
Environmental Systems Research 5(1):1-10, doi:10.1186/s40068-016-0059-0.
Ahmed, A.G.M., Azeze, A., Babiker, M. and Tsegaye, D.
2002. Post-drought recovery strategies horn of Africa: a review. In: Organization for Social Science· Research in Eastern and Southern Africa (OSSREA).
Ajao, A. and Ogunniyi, L. 2011. Agris on-line papers in economics and informatics farmers’ strategies for adapting to climate change in Ogbomoso agricultural zone of Oyo state Key words. Agris On-Line Papers in Economics and Informatics 3(3):3-13.
Amenu, K., Szonyi, B., Grace, D. and Wieland, B. 2017.
Important knowledge gaps among pastoralists on causes and treatment of udder health problems in livestock in southern Ethiopia: Results of qualitative investigation.
BMC Veterinary Research 13(1):1-13, doi:10.1186/s12917-017-1222-1.
Amsalu, A. and Adem, A. 2009. Assessment of climate change-induced hazards, impacts and responses in the southern lowlands of Ethiopia. Cordaid and Forum for Social Studies.
Andersen, K.E. 2011. Communal Tenure and the Governance of Common Property Resources in Asia:
Lessons From Experiences in Selected Countries. In Land Tenure Working Paper 20, FAO.
Berhan, G., Tadesse, T., Atnafu, S. and Hill, S. 2011.
Drought monitoring in food-insecure areas of Ethiopia by using satellite technologies. Climate Change Management 11(4):183-200, doi:10.1007/978-3-642- 22315-0_11.
Berisso, T. 2000. The riddles of number nine in Guji-Oromo culture. Journal of Ethiopian Studies 33(1):49-66.
Boku, T. 2010. Participatory impacts assessment of drought
reserve areas in Guji and Borana zones, Oromia Region.
Report Prepared for Save the Children USA.
Catley, A., Admassu, B., Bekele, G. and Abebe, D. 2014.
Livestock mortality in pastoralist herds in Ethiopia and implications for drought response. Disasters 38(3):500- 516, doi:10.1111/disa.12060.
Creswell, J. 2007. An Introduction to Mixed Methods Office of Qualitative and Mixed Methods Research. University of Nebraska - Lincoln.
Dalle, G., Isselstein, J. and Maass, B.L. 2005. Indigenous ecological knowledge of Borana pastoralists in southern Ethiopia and current challenges. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 12(1):1-18.
Degefu, M.A., Assen, M., Satyal, P. and Budds, J. 2020.
Villagization and access to water resources in the Middle Awash Valley of Ethiopia: Implications for climate change adaptation. Climate and Development 12(10):899-910, doi:10.1080/17565529.2019.1701973.
Degefu, M.A., Rowell, D.P. and Bewket, W. 2017.
Teleconnections between Ethiopian rainfall variability and global SSTs: observations and methods for model evaluation. Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics 129(2):173-186, doi:10.1007/s00703-016-0466-9.
Desta, S. 2006. Pastoralism and development in Ethiopia.
Economic Focus 9(3):12-20.
Dirriba, M., Simbone, T. and Bely, B. 2020. Pastoral farming system and its temporal shift: A case of Borana zone, Oromia National Regional State, Ethiopia. African Journal of Agricultural Research 16(9):1233-1238, doi:10.5897/AJAR2018.13847.
Fenetahun, Y., Yong-Dong, W., You, Y. and Xinwen, X.
2020. Dynamics of forage and land cover changes in Teltele district of Borana rangelands, southern Ethiopia:
Using geospatial and field survey data. BMC Ecology 20(1):1-16, doi:10.1186/s12898-020-00320-8.
Fenta, M., Jordaan, A. and Melka, Y. 2019. Vulnerability of Southern Afar pastoralists to climate variability and change, Ethiopia. Jàmbá Journal of Disaster Risk Studies 11(1):1-8, doi:10.4102/jamba.v11i1.575.
Gebeye, B.A. 2016. Unsustain the sustainable: An evaluation of the legal and policy interventions for pastoral development in Ethiopia. Pastoralism 6(1):1-14, doi:10.1186/s13570-016-0049-x.
Gemeda, O. 2019. Indigenous mechanisms of preserving sacred natural sites in Guji Oromo, Adoola Reedde and Anna Sorra Districts, Southern Ethiopia. Cogent Food &
Agriculture 5(1):1-14,
doi:10.1080/23311932.2019.1609765.
Habte, M., Eshetu, M., Maryo, M., Andualem, D. and Legesse, A. 2022. Effects of climate variability on livestock productivity and pastoralists perception: The case of drought resilience in Southeastern Ethiopia.
Veterinary and Animal Science 16(1):1-15, doi:10.1016/j.vas.2022.100240.
Humanitarian Policy Group (HPG). 2009. Pastoralism and climate change: Enabling adaptive capacity. In:
Humanitarian Policy Group, London.
IUCN. 2011. Supporting Sustainable Pastoral Livelihoods:
A Global Perspective on Minimum Standards and Good Practices. Second Edition March 2012: published for review and consultation through global learning fora.
Nairobi, Kenya: IUCN ESARO office. vi + 34pp.
Retrieved on May, 5, 2019 from www.iucn.org.
Karavitis, C.A., Alexandris, S., Tsesmelis, D.E. and Athanasopoulos, G. 2011. Application of the
Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI) in Greece. Water 3(3):787-805, doi:10.3390/w3030787.
Little, P. and Barrett, C.B. 2006. The Multiple Dimensions of Poverty in Pastoral Areas of East Africa: ‘Pastoralism and Poverty Reduction in East Africa: A Policy Research Conference. June 27-28, 2006 Nairobi, Kenya
Lulekal, E., Asfaw, Z., Kelbessa, E., Van Damme, P., Webster, J.I., Glaser, R., Meeting, A., Dalle, G., Mekuria, W., Aynekulu, E., Selye, H. and Wang, Y.
2018. Assessment of range land degradation, major causes, impacts, and alternative rehabilitation techniques in Yabello rangelands Southern Ethiopia. Preprints 115(2):1-19, doi:10.20944/preprints201807.0198.v1.
Mcbean, G. and Ajibade, I. 2009. Climate change, related hazards and human settlements. Current Opinions in Environmental Sustainability 1(1):179-186, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.10.006.
Mellisse, B. and Wassie, Y. 2014. Implications of Constrained Mobility on Livestock Production and Pastoral Livelihoods of Borana Plateau, Southern Ethiopia. In East Africa TIRI Research.
Meshesha, D.T., Moahmmed, M. and Yosuf, D. 2019.
Estimating carrying capacity and stocking rates of rangelands in Harshin District, Eastern Somali Region, Ethiopia. Ecology and Evolution 9(23):13309-13319, doi:10.1002/ece3.5786.
Ministry of Pastoral Development & Environment (MoPDE). 2004. Impact of Charcoal Production on Environment and the Socio Economy of Pastoral communities of Somaliland. Candlelight for Health, Education & Environment. Retrieved on June, 23, 2019 from https://www.candlelightsomal.org/wp- content/uploads/2014/07/Case-study-Charcoal- production-in-Somaliland.pdf
Mishra, A.K. and Kumar, A. 2018. Investigating rainfall trend and monitoring meteorological drought in a Himalayan watershed of India. Geosciences Research 3(4):51-64, doi:10.22606/gr.2018.34002.
Naah, J.S.N. and Braun, B. 2019. Local agro-pastoralists’
perspectives on forage species diversity, habitat distributions, abundance trends and ecological drivers for sustainable livestock production in West Africa.
Scientific Reports 9(1):1-11, doi:10.1038/s41598-019- 38636-1.
Núñez, J., Vergara, A., Leyton, C., Metzkes, C., Mancilla, G.
and Bettancourt, D. 2017. Reconciling drought vulnerability assessment using a convergent approach:
Application toWater Security in the Elqui River basin, North-Central Chile. Water (Switzerland) 9(8):1-25, doi:10.3390/w9080589.
Nyangena, J. 2018. Drought, Land Use Change and Livelihood Diversification among Pastoral Communities in Oltiasika, Kajiado County, Kenya. PhD Dissertation, Kenyatta University, Kenya .
Salhi, A., Martin-Vide, J., Benhamrouche, A., Benabdelouahab, S., Himi, M., Benabdelouahab, T. and Casas Ponsati, A. 2019. Rainfall distribution and trends of the daily precipitation concentration index in northern Morocco: a need for an adaptive environmental policy.
Applied Sciences 1(3):1-15, doi:10.1007/s42452-019- 0290-1.
Samy, A., Ibrahim, M.G., Mahmod, W.E., Fujii, M., Eltawil, A. and Daoud, W. 2019. Statistical assessment of rainfall characteristics in upper Blue Nile basin over the period from 1953 to 2014. Water (Switzerland) 11(3):1-17, doi:10.3390/w11030468.
Selemani, I.S. 2020. Indigenous knowledge and rangelands’
biodiversity conservation in Tanzania: success and failure. Biodiversity and Conservation,29(14):3863- 3876, doi:10.1007/s10531-020-02060-z.
Szeptycki, L., Hatfield, J., Honeycutt, W. and Raff, D. 2015.
The Federal Role in Watershed Scale in Drought Resilience; White House/NDRP Drought Symposium.
Discussion Paper. July 15-18, 2015, Washington DC.
Tadesse, Y., Amsalu, A., Billi, P. and Fazzini, M. 2018. A new early warning drought index for Ethiopia. Journal of Water and Climate Change 9(3):624-630, doi:10.2166/wcc.2018.105.
Teshome, A. 2016. Indigenous ecological knowledge and pastoralist perception on rangeland management and degradation in Guji zone of South Ethiopia. Consilience:
The Journal of Sustainable Development 15(1):192-218.
Tilahun, A., Teklu, B. and Hoag, D. 2017. Challenges and contributions of crop production in agro-pastoral systems of Borana Plateau, Ethiopia. Pastoralism:
Research, Policy and Practice 7(2):1-8, doi:10.1186/s13570-016-0074-9.
Wassie, B. 2019. Assessment of Vulnerability to Persistent Deprivation: Evidence from A Peripheral Pastoralist Population in Ethiopia. October 7, African Economic Research Consortium, Nairobi, Kenya.
Yamane, T. 1967. Statistics: An Introductory Analysis, 2nd Edition, New York:Harper and Row.
Yassin, I.M. 2019. Bush encroachment in Borana rangeland in the case of Southern Ethiopia : causes, impacts and management implications. International Journal of Agriculture Innovations and Research 7(4):420-428.
