I work with pastoralists in Ethiopia. The problem is not only that state intervention usually turns out to be bad to pastoralists, but that with all the the international boarders, agreements, military etc., it is now almost totally impossible to avoid the state interventions.  I would therefore rather ask what kind of state intervention is good? A model which does not intervene with the ecological adaptation strategies of pastoralists while providing support on issues like conflict resolution and management, food aid, facilitation of cross border and local livestock trade, veterinary services etc would be good. 

It is also always good to recognize and empower local governance institutions and use them as gateways for development interventions, instead of opting for their complete replacement by state government structures. 

Generally, pastoralism in East Africa in general and in Ethiopia in particular is so affected by lots of complex factors that it may no more be able to operate by itself. Therefore, a carefully designed temporary state intervention that plans to ultimately be replaced by customary institutions is required. 

Thanks, I agree with you, it is increasingly hard for EMPS to "operate" by themselves. Nevertheless, being marginal they are not an attractive "agenda" for governments to provide support either. Hence, in many cases land use policy does not integrate EMPS which results in further marginalization of pastoralists (i.e. large afforestation projects over rangelands used as pastures). In some places, the solution could be awareness raising (it worked in Pakistan), putting forward the benefits to society of having EMPS. But does this work everywhere?    

The market forces should be the key driver. However, state may come in to regulate use of small arms, especially in countries where small arms used by pastoralists are also used in crime.

Henri, Mulubrhan, I support and wholly agree with your points.  The problem that I see is that the many benefits of pastoralism, although recognised in the academic literature, are poorly quantified.  If pastoralism outcomes were objectively measured by reputable research and made well known to all stakeholders including government, they'd be harder to ignore, dismiss, treat as marginal therefore unimportant or argue with.  

Absent this, the wisdom and proven success of pastoralism over a long timespan and its significant economic and social contribution is unseen and unappreciated.  The void is filled by others who have their own reasons for either appropriating for their own use the resources that pastoralists use and conserve, or destroying them.

Wishful concern and hope for pastoralism are increasingly being aired in various media.  They add emotion and subjectively present pastoralists well, but do not score the points required to argue against the harder edged financial, economic and political imperatives of other interests.  If pastoralism is to survive it needs better weapons.

Thanks Tony, I think one benefit of pastoralism that lacks a clear understanding is the contribution of pastoral systems to food security. Everyone more or less understands that pastoral systems keep marginal lands food productive without or with minimal inputs, which in the overall balance of food production is a plus. However, what remains unclear is the overall contribution of EMPS to regional food security. Is it marginal or is it substantial? Can the contribution of EMPS to food security be made more visible for governments to adjust their strategy towards pastoralists and integrate EMPS in their planning?  

Thanks Donald, I think crime and insurgency within pastoralist communities reflect either marginalization or a deep disconnect with the State and society (at least where I work). Enforcing laws and small arms control as you suggest is one way to look at it, empowerment could be another one. 

there is pcdp project run under Ethiopian condition and there a need of check and balance of budget because of i have observed some corruption

Not only does pastoralism contribute significantly to national

economies, but the absence of the pastoralist system would

burden the governments of the Horn and East Africa with

considerable costs. In the absence of pastoral beef/meat

production, pastoralists would be forced to look for alternative

sources of food, including relief food, cattle raiding/rustling or

rural–urban migration. Governments would have to find the

money to purchase relief food from their already constrained

budgets and would have to divert resources from productive

uses to promoting security. In the absence of traditional mobile

pastoralism, pastoralists will be forced to concentrate their

livestock within limited parts of the rangelands, leading to

degradation, loss of livestock, deprivation and poverty

For me pastoralism is a way of life that depends on social, economical, political, development and environmental changes. If so; there is always changes in this ways of life application so in steps of application there might be a need for intervention as things has to very at last by policy makers for macro development of the nation at large. Here if we are not dealing with theoretical dimensions of classical analysis which is not more applicable in a country of "ing".  For it is not about government intervention or not rather how can we develop it in away it can benefit the pastoral with friendly environment and contribute more to the NI and GDP. But this time is becoming for funding and political profit security thoughts of paradox.  Change of livelihood of HH and contribution to the economy in real term is implicitly unleashed yet in the case of Ethiopia productivity also matters in the community. The availability of data not 100% reliable but still there is of HH survey that has been done nationally.   

The assumption that pastoral production systems contribute less to their national economies because the offtake is less than recommended proved untrue. One example is Sudan where livestock have in recent years consistently provided more than 60% of the estimated value added to the agricultural sector.

Natural resource availability and distribution are the factors that determine livestock seasonal migrations of pastoralists. The approach to resource management is usually through governance of markets, securing stock routes and regulations of mobility to cross borders. For the pastoral production systems to be environmentally sustainable, strategic mobility, to catch up with pasture when nutrients at peak, must be sustained.

Environmental challenges in recent decades in the Horn of Africa and Sahel Belt had changed livestock husbandry management; this is evident in water scarcity due to diminishing rainfall in some parts of these regions; shrinkage of pastoral areas due to expansion in mechanized agriculture and overgrazing; tribal conflicts on the fading resources had changed stock routes.

Adaptive mechanisms to combat climate change impacts on pastoral systems are of vital importance. Governments and other stakeholders need to link natural resources, livelihoods and resilience with climate change strategies.

All responses concur, and we all agree, extensive mobile pastoral systems (EMPS) contribute greatly to their national economies, which, however, remains by and large unnoticed by governments. Furthermore, EMPS may increasingly struggle to operate by themselves, which, in theory, would require more State intervention. I know however that for some researchers, more State intervention in EMPS is NOT the solution.I think the main argument against State intervention widely relies on past experiences where pastoralists have been settled and controlled with a tendency to attempt a "modernization" process of their lifestyle/practices, which in return potentially decreased benefits from traditionally well-managed EMPS. Another argument supports the idea that pastoralists are doing quite well and do not need support from practitioners nor governments. I must say that both arguments are quite valid.  I hope we will have some answers supporting a less state intervention model. It would be interesting to further the debate with such inputs. 

Henri

This has been an excellent discussion with very helpful contributions.  I've looked forward each day to a new and valuable perspective from a new posting.  Thank you for initiating the topic.

I agree with you that both the arguments above are valid and find them quite harmonious with each other - not mutually exclusive. Yes, agreed, well quantified research information is needed.

Sincerely, Tony