Introductory Guidelines to Participatory Rangeland Management in Pastoral Areas

Save the Children USAEthiopia Country O!cePO Box 387Addis AbabaEthiopia

Tel: + 251 (0)11 372 8455-60Fax: + 251 (0)11 372 8045

These guidelines introduce and promote the essential elements of participatoryrangeland management (PRM). Based upon the successful experiences ofparticipatory forest management, the guidelines provide a process followingthree stages of investigation, negotiation and implementation. The sequentialsteps of this process lead to the development of a rangeland management planand a legally binding rangeland management agreement between a local range-land management institution and the appropriate local government office.

PRM supports community leadership and inclusiveness in land use planningpolicy and practice. It takes into account the interests, positions and needs of allrangeland users in pastoral areas and offers opportunities for negotiations to becarried out between these different stakeholders to come to agreement over thefuture of pastoral land use. It provides a suitable and legitimizing process ofcommunal land and resource tenure that fits with both the priorities of pastor-alists as well as government bodies.

This document has been developed with the assistance of many NGO andgovernment representatives who have an interest in supporting pastoralistsand their livelihood processes. It is anticipated that the Guidelines will help tofurther inform policy and decision makers whose task is to establish effectiverange management as a basis for the sustainable development of the rangelands.

FAO Emergency and RehabilitationCoordination O!cePO Box 5536Addis AbabaEthiopia

Tel: +251 (0)11 551 7233Fax: +251 (0)11 551 5266

European Commission Directorate Generalfor Humanitarian Aid— ECHOPO Box 5570Addis AbabaEthiopia

Tel: +251 (0)11 663 8616 / 618 0256Fax: +251 (0)11 663 8611

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Humanitarian Aid

Introductory Guidelines toParticipatory Rangeland Managementin Pastoral Areas

Compiled byFiona Flintan and Adrian Cullis

with assistance fromMembers of the Natural Resource ManagementTechnicalWorking Group, Ethiopia

Introductory Guidelines toParticipatory Rangeland Managementin Pastoral Areas

Compiled byFiona Flintan and Adrian Cullis

with assistance fromMembers of the Natural Resource ManagementTechnicalWorking Group, Ethiopia

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Humanitarian Aid

AcknowledgementsThe Guidelines were compiled by Fiona Flintan1 and Adrian Cullis,2 supported by Ben Irwin,3 based on work previously car-ried out in Ethiopia under the Participatory Forest Management initiative which was initially led by FARM Africa, SOS Saheland the Bureaus of Agriculture and Rural Development of the Oromia and Southern Nations and Nationalities Peoples’(SNNP) Regions. In particular the Guidelines are based on the planning steps developed in the ‘Key Steps in Establishing Par-ticipatory Forest Management’”.4

The compilers could not have completed the task without the support and encouragement of the Natural Resource Man-agement TechnicalWorking Group (NRMTWG) which was established as part of the USAID-funded Enhanced Livelihoods inthe Mandera Triangle/Enhanced Livelihoods in Southern Ethiopia (ELMT/ELSE) and EU-funded PILLAR (Pastoral ImprovedLivelihoods and Resilience) programs, and has spread to include a wide range of stakeholders working in pastoralist areasthroughout Ethiopia, including sta! of both government and non-government agencies. Members who have been particu-larly active in supporting this initiative over the last two years are listed at the end of the document.

The compilers wish also to thank Corinna Riginos, Siva Sundaresan and Je! Herrick for helping to develop the sections onrangeland resource assessment and monitoring and evaluation.

Thanks to Kelley Lynch who prepared the document for printing and provided the photographs and to Helen de Jodewho provided technical editing services. Thanks also to Alison Judd for the photograph on page 12 and Craig Leggett for thephotograph on page 24.

The compilers recognize that pastoral leaders, in particular customary leaders, have played the central role in guidingrangeland management experts in clarifying centuries long rangeland management institutions and systems, and in identi-fying contemporary challenges and opportunities. This dialogue carried out in the main with local government and agency"eld sta! has enabled components of the process to be tested, re"ned and developed within local rangeland managementsystems.

The compilers hope that with the continued support of all stakeholders that it will be possible to further develop thiswork and start the process of mainstreaming PRM within zonal, regional and federal government policies, legislation andpractice, with a view to arresting and reversing rangeland degradation and laying the foundation for more sustainable liveli-hoods of pastoral communities. It is therefore planned that this introductory volume will be followed by a series of guide-lines on practical applications of participatory rangeland management.

The NRMTWGwould be pleased to hear more about activities, projects and programs that are using participatory range-land management approaches. Please contact Fiona Flintan ("ona#[email protected], "ona#[email protected]) or AdrianCullis ([email protected])

This publication has been produced with the assistance of FAO, with funding from ECHO’s Regional Drought Decision.The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not re#ect the views of FAO or ECHO.

Save the Children is the world’s leading independent child rights organization. More typically associated with education,health and HIV programming, Save the Children’s Ethiopia Country O$ce is supporting pioneering work with pastoral chil-dren and community leaders in Ethiopia as part of a global climate change mitigation and adaptation initiative. The immedi-ate focus is to maintain livestock productivity — in particular milk — and therefore mitigate malnutrition in children under"ve. In the longer-term, Save the Children seeks to:• Arrest and reverse rangeland degradation for future generations of children

• Promote sustainable economic development in the rangelands to address poverty and reduce dependence on food aid

• Secure international payments for ‘rangeland environmental services’ including the subsidized sequestration of carbon

Published in 2010ISBN 978-99944-847-1-3

Contents

07 Introduction to participatory rangeland management

11 Stage 1: Investigating PRM

Step 1: Identifying rangeland resources and users

17 Stage 2: Negotiating PRM

Step 2: Setting up or strengthening rangeland management institutionsStep 3: Defining the rangeland management unit and preparing

the rangeland resource assessmentStep 4: Developing the rangeland management planStep 5: Establishing the rangeland management agreement

27 Stage 3: Implementing PRM

Step 6: New roles for communities and rangeland management advisorsStep 7: Arresting and reversing declining rangeland productivityStep 8: Participatory monitoring and evaluation

Acronyms and AbbreviationsGIS Geographical information systems

M&E Monitoring and evaluation

NRM Natural resource management

PFM Participatory forest management

PRM Participatory rangeland management

PTD Participatory technology development

TWG Technical working group

Boxes, Figures and Tables08 Box 1

Pastoralism as a mainstay of the economy

09 Figure 1The stages of the PRM process

15 Table 1Four ‘R’s matrix for a dry seasongrazing area

20 Box 2Local land-use planning at alandscape level

21 Table 2Possible habitat types

24 Box 3Woreda Environment Management Plans

26 Box 4The experience of Participatory ForestManagement in Borana

30 Box 5Management of invasive species

30 Box 6Climate change challenges

32 Box 7Definition of monitoring and evaluation

Guidelines to Participatory Rangeland Management 05

The purpose of these Guidelines is to introduce and promote the essential elements of par-ticipatory rangeland management (PRM). It is hoped that the Guidelines will help furtherinform government policy and decision makers whose task is to establish effective rangemanagement as a basis for the sustainable development of the rangelands.

The book is structured to enable easy reference. After introducing participatory range-land management and explaining why it is now important for Ethiopia, the Guidelines setout the sequential steps involved in PRM, divided into three stages of investigation, nego-tiation and implementation. In the main section (negotiation), the reader can make quickreference to the specific steps in the process and its main outcome — a participatoryrangeland management agreement.

The long-term implementation of PRM requires that new partnerships be establishedbetween government and communities, that new negative threats to rangelands beaddressed, and that rangelands are effectively monitored. The book concludes with clearguidance on what is needed within each of these final steps in the process.

The structure of these guidelines

‘Rangeland productivity hotspots’needto be protected for pastoralists toensure the viability and growth of thepastoral production system as a whole.


Rangeland management in Ethiopia

There is growing concern in the Horn of Africa that globalclimate change and the increasing incidence of droughtare undermining livelihood systems in the rangelands.Whilst the increasing incidence of drought does seem tobe true, it is also clear that the lack of a coherentapproach to decision-making in the rangelands has donemore to undermine former levels of rangeland productiv-ity than cyclical droughts could ever achieve. The recklessdevelopment of water in former ‘wet season’grazingareas, for example, has resulted in spontaneous settle-ment and year-round grazing. Unless grazing is bettermanaged in the rangelands, and grass given the oppor-tunity to recover, highly palatable species are e!ectivelygrazed out and the species mix potentially irrevocablychanged.The rangelands have historically been managed

according to customary governance systems, which hasworked well until recent times. The rangelands includediverse ecological zones, which the extensive livestockproduction systems that form the mainstay of pastoralisteconomies depend upon to access ‘key’grazingresources— in particular to survive droughts. Howeverunless these key grazing resources can be identi"ed andprotected for future generations, extensive livestockkeeping will become increasingly challenging, and theranks of households depending on food aid will grow asthere are few proven and viable alternative livelihoodoptions.The pastoralist system’s dependence on key resources

at certain times of the year includes many dry seasongrazing areas and watering points — the ‘rangeland pro-ductivity hotspots’. At the same time the system alsomakes use of secondary value land and resources thatare often poor in quality. Unless there is secure access tothe ‘hotspots’ these poor value resources cannot other-wise be used for livestock, or other production systems,

Introduction to participatory rangeland management

without a high level of technical and chemical inputand a risk of serious environmental damage and degra-dation.5

Today competition over resources and land in pastoralareas of Ethiopia has grown. Populations have increaseddue to natural growth, as well as from an in#ux of settlersand commercial enterprises into pastoral areas; keen toacquire land in those areas where agricultural productionis perceived to be viable. Invariably, areas of higher agri-cultural productivity are those pockets that are also‘rangeland productivity hotspots’— the areas that pro-vide essential grazing in times of drought and are there-fore central to the health of pastoral production systems.

Participatory rangeland management asa land use planning and managementtool for pastoral areas

Recognizing the changes Ethiopia now faces, pastoralleaders, local government and other stakeholders haveaccepted the importance in "nding a more comprehen-sive approach to land use planning policy and practice,that takes into account the interests, positions and needsof all rangeland users in pastoral areas. Land use plan-ning and management tools need to be developed forpastoral areas and be included within relevant policies,future legislation, and other guiding or decision-makingprocesses.Several regional governments in Ethiopia are currently

actively developing land use policies and it is anticipatedthis process will be scaled-up to other pastoral areas inthe future.8 Whilst positive, there appears to be a lack ofpastoral speci"c experience to guide decision makers in"rstly, the inclusion of the interests, positions and needsof pastoralists speci"cally; and secondly, in developing asuitable and legitimizing process of communal land andresource tenure that "ts with both the priorities of pas-toralists as well as government administrative bodies.

Box 1 Pastoralism as a mainstayof the economy

Extensive livestock keeping, or pastoralism, is anefficient and productive livelihood system that hasbeen developed and refined by pastoralists overseveral centuries to enable pastoral households tosurvive and thrive in semi-arid and arid range-lands. In addition to meeting household subsis-tence needs, pastoralism also contributessubstantially to the Ethiopian economy. Not onlydoes pastoralism provide a high output livelihoodfor the majority of rangeland inhabitants, but it isalso a very environmentally sound use of the avail-able resources, contributing to rangeland biodiver-sity and providing a range of other environmentalservices including carbon sequestration.

In 2008 the direct financial value of pastoralismwas estimated to be 1.22 billion USD per annum. Inaddition, livestock production, particularly pastoralproduction, provided a large number of indirecteconomic values (including draught power, manure,tourism and rangeland products such as gums andresins), which are estimated to exceed 458 millionUSD. This gave a total estimated economic value forpastoralism in Ethiopia of at least 1.68 billion USDper annum.

Source: SOS Sahel 20086 ; EEA 2004/20057

08 Guidelines to Participatory Rangeland Management

Based upon the success of participatory forest man-agement (PFM) in Ethiopia, e!orts are being made todevelop participatory rangeland management as a toolfor policy and decision makers in order to address thechallenges highlighted above. As with its forestry man-agement counter-part, PRM promotes inclusivity andparticipation of all stakeholders in land use planningprocesses, including pastoralists, with a view to ensureimproved rangeland management and hence liveli-hoods, through the establishment of a government certi-"ed rangeland management agreement.

Summary of the participatoryrangeland management process

The process of PRM is a series of sequential steps inwhich the elements are put in place to produce a partici-patory rangeland management agreement. The objec-tive is to have an agreement that is endorsed by allrelevant stakeholders, which is legally binding and canbe e!ectively monitored. The PRM process can bedivided into three distinct stages (see Figure 1), whichare summarized brie#y here:

1. Investigating PRMThe "rst stage in the PRM process is the gathering ofinformation about the di!erent resources found in therangelands, their uses (including at di!erent times of theyear), and the stakeholders and users (including theirinstitutions and groups that have a role in rangelandresource management). This is achieved through the useof di!erent tools including resource mapping and stake-holder analysis.

2. Negotiating PRMThe second stage is focused on negotiation. The initialtask is to identify the most appropriate community-ledgroup or institution to manage the process— the range-land management institution. In the majority of pastoralareas in Ethiopia customary institutions still play a centralrole in the management of rangeland resources and theiraccess, and have evolved sophisticated managementsystems that allow the utilization of rangelands for thebene"ts of a variety of stakeholders. PRM can be basedupon these long standing indigenous knowledge sys-tems, though adjustments to new challenges and devel-opments may need to be made.

The second task is for the rangeland management unit,or area that the institution will be responsible for, to befully negotiated. This is done via a participatory range-land resource assessment, and then by facilitating anegotiation process between the di!erent stakeholdersto clarify the boundaries of the rangeland managementunit. The outcome of the negotiation should be a consen-sus between all parties as to how to access resources,how the resources should be managed and by whom.In the next step the rangeland management plan is

drawn up, specifying: the roles and responsibilities of therangeland management institution; its rangeland man-agement unit including information on resources andtheir condition; and an outline of the rangeland manage-

Figure 1 The stages of the PRM process


ment processes that will be followed, including monitor-ing and evaluation and adaptive management.The rangeland management plan forms the basis of

the rangeland management agreement— the "nal stepin the negotiation stage. This is drawn up, approved, andsigned by the rangeland management institution andthe appropriate local government body. This rangelandmanagement agreement must be recognized by govern-ment as providing lawful authority for the rangelandmanagement institution to manage the resources in therangeland management unit, according to the agreedrangeland management plan.

3. Implementing PRMThe "nal stage of the PRM process is the implementationof the rangeland management plan, and adherence tothe rangeland management agreement by the rangelandusers. Adherence is the responsibility of the rangelandmanagement institution, supported by the appropriategovernment o$ce providing necessary technical adviceand legal backing. Regular monitoring and evaluation ofthe PRM process is vital to ensure the implementation of

the management plan and agreement, with appropriatechanges being made based on a system of adaptivemanagement. The rangeland management institutionand the appropriate government o$ce, should worktogether to ensure implementation occurs. This newpartnership will require people to take on new roles andnew ways of working.

Outcome of the participatory rangelandmanagement process

With the establishment of PRM, the relevant and agreedupon customary institution(s) and/or de"ned communityrangeland management group is legally enabled to over-see the sustainable management of the natural resourcesfound in the de"ned rangeland area. Though customaryinstitutions have been managing rangeland resources forcenturies, the di!erence with this process is that theagreed upon institutions/groups are provided with thelegal authority to do so. This is enabled by, and depend-ent upon, a negotiated and documented legally bindingrangeland management agreement.


A Hamarmanwaters his cattle. Access to wateris becoming increasingly di!cult as access towater sources is cut o" by agricultural expan-sion, settlements and fencing of ‘the commons.’


Investigating PRM

1

Understanding rangeland resources

Users of the rangeland rely on a large number ofresources to enable them to support viable livelihoods.These resources are spatially and temporally distributedacross a ‘landscape’or a pastoral ‘resource unit’. In thepast, di!erent levels of customary institutions have man-aged access to these resources, in terms of who can grazeand water their animals, when and for how long. Suchaccess and user rights are not "xed however: reciprocalarrangements are common as a means to ensure thateach user group has access to rangeland resources at alltimes, including during times of drought. For this reasonrights to rangeland resources might not be immediatelyclear to an outsider, but instead appear vague, with shift-ing assertions and continuous contestation and negotia-tion of access rules.Resource rights can also be described as non-exclusive,

multiple, asymmetric (priority given to certain users) andin some cases time-bound. They are associated with cer-tain unique conditions relevant to pastoral economiesnamely: the seasonal mobility of animals and herds; theuneven distribution of resources over a grazing territory;the variability of rainfall; the existence of more than one

Step 1 Identifying rangeland resources and usersThe basis of a rangeland management agreement is the rangeland’s resources and resource users.Before negotiations can get underway it is essential that everyone involved in the process has aclear understanding of what the resources are and who the users are. Local government sta! andNGO representatives can facilitate the collection of information on rangeland resources and assistcommunities to carry out a stakeholder analysis.

Rights of access to use rangeland resources are de#ned andprotected by pastoral customary institutions such as theGada.


user group; and the e!ective institutional mechanismsfor regulating the use of resources and for preventingand resolving violent con#ict arising from competitionover resources.A general understanding of rangeland resources can

be gained through a series of consultations and discus-sions with community and government representatives,and other interested parties. A number of participatorytools can be used including:

• Mapping of resources;

• Seasonal calendars;

• Rangeland species matrix; and

• Rangeland condition/health historical trend analysis.

The most powerful and information generating ofthese tools is likely to be the mapping of resources. Com-munity maps drawn of resources found in a speci"c area,and resulting discussions about their use, condition,access etc. have proved to be a highly useful land-useplanning tool.Resources can be re-mapped at di!erent scales for a

given area e.g. at landscape level or at district level. Ide-ally the map will display important information, such asdry and wet season grazing reserves, water sources,

forest boundaries, physical features (such as rivers, roads,paths), and other key resources such as fuel-wood andnon-timber dryland products, botanical resources andminerals. Information on di!erent grazing, water, forageand forest areas, and their condition/health can also beadded to the map.The directions that resource users and their livestock

move to use resources (mobility) can also be shown onthe map. Community drawn rangeland maps can berelated to topographic maps fairly easily and/or be con-verted to GIS maps or considered next to satelliteimages. A community drawn resource map is the basisfor developing a rangeland area map to be included inthe rangeland management plan.As it is likely that men and women will view resources

and their use di!erently, it is preferable to carry out map-ping and other information gathering exercises with menand women separately. It may also be necessary to takeinto account other social/cultural divisions in the societyand take actions to ensure that all views and perspec-tives are included.

Understanding rangeland users

The second crucial task in the ‘Investigating PRM’ stage isto undertake a thorough review of rangeland usersthrough a stakeholder analysis. As noted, rangelandshave multiple users, or stakeholders, and the relation-ships between them need to be understood if a moreinclusive management of rangeland resources is to beachieved. Stakeholders include men and women, youngand old, and rich and poor – all of whomwill have di!er-ent relations with rangeland resources and their use.The immediate objective of a stakeholder analysis for

PRM is to identify and analyze all the di!erent stakehold-ers in terms of their direct and indirect use of rangelandresources. The current, and potential, roles and responsi-bilities of the di!erent users can then be identi"ed, andthe interests, positions and requirements of all stake-holders fully understood. This process will allow potentialand actual risks and con#icts between groups to be iden-ti"ed and highlighted.Identifying how people perceive their own rights and

responsibilities over resources, as well as those of others,is then the starting point in initiating discussions about

In Afar as in other pastoralist areas, livestock and pastoralists(men, women, young, old, rich and poor) use resources in dif-ferent ways and at di"erent times of the year.


Participatory mapping of resources bycommunity members is a key startingpoint for understanding resource use,users, access andmanagement.


whom should have what rights and responsibilities in afuture rangeland management system. To di!erentiatebetween di!erent levels of rights to the rangeland’sresources, stakeholders can be divided into primary andsecondary users. They may be di!erentiated according tothe proximity of their base settlement to a resource, suchas a water source or a dry season grazing area, or di!er-entiated through their clan a$liations.The stakeholder analysis should involve group exercises

and discussions to identify rangeland stakeholders, andshould involve representatives from as many stakeholdergroups as possible. Two useful tools for the analysis are:• Stakeholder and institution mapping; and• The con#ict onionSpeci"c questions that the stakeholder analysis can

answer focus on four elements of rangeland use andman-agement:• Who has what rights to use the rangeland resourcesand for what purpose? (Rights)

• Who takes what actions in terms of rangeland andresource management? (Responsibilities)

• How do the di!erent stakeholders relate to each other?(Relationships)

• Who bene"ts from the rangeland resources?(Revenues)

To summarize this information a 4R’s (Rights, Responsi-bilities, Relationships and Revenues) matrix can be con-structed.Working with community groups it is possibleto compile information about di!erent stakeholdersunder de"ned headings. It may be necessary to treateach type of resource separately e.g. water, grazing,browse, non-timber dryland products.The information obtained provides the basis for com-

munity discussions of who should be involved in theagreement on a rangeland management system, andwhat rights, responsibilities and bene"ts they eachshould have.

A community-drawn resourcemap can prove to be a valuable tool for land use planning in pastoral areas.


Table 1 Four ‘Rs’ matrix for a dry season grazing area


Exclusion of community groups from customary institutions and decision-making processesDryland groups such as pastoralists tend to rely on customary institutions as the public face of decision-making processes.These customary institutions tend to bemade up of male elders of a certain status, thereby excluding women, some youth andmore ‘marginal’groups. Though it can be argued that these community groups have their interests represented by their malerelatives (the Elders) some caution is advisable in order to ensure that customary institutions are fully representative and fair.Having said this, it is too often assumed that women and other minority groups do not have ways tomake their voices heardand are therefore without in$uence. Again, rather than taking things for granted, every e"ort should bemade to clarify currentdecision-making processes, both formal and informal in order to establish fair, representative and inclusive decision-makingprocess, in which none aremarginalized.


Negotiating PRM

2

The investigations of stage 1 will have established thepresence and current status of any existing rangelandmanagement institutions. Discussions can then be heldamong the di!erent stakeholders as to whether an exist-ing institution is appropriate, and whether with someadaptation it can ful"ll the necessary roles and responsi-bilities required of it, or if the development of a newgroup or institution is a better solution.

Legal authorityIt is important local government representatives areincluded within these initial discussions to ensure thatthe rangeland management institution selected will beable to gain legal recognition as a local rangeland man-agement body. Its legal recognition will de"ne its author-ity, its role, its responsibilities and its bene"ts. Its taskswill include bringing any o!enders of the de"ned range-land management rules and by-laws to the appropriatelaw bodies, the police or the court, so achieving this legalrecognition is a critical challenge— and one that isbecoming ever more important due to the di!erent pres-

Step 2 Setting up or strengtheningrangeland management institutionsThe establishment or strengthening of functional community-based rangeland management insti-tutions is at the centre of successful PRM. The rangeland management institution is the body orgroup that will take on the roles and responsibilities of community-based rangeland management.The strength of the rangeland management institution is therefore critical, including the skills andcapabilities of its members to carry out the duties assigned to them.

sures on rangeland systems and pastoral communities.In order to enter into a legal agreement with a govern-

ment body, a community body needs to have a formallegal status. Currently only limited legal recognition andprotection of community-based institutions can be pro-vided for under Ethiopian law. Ethiopian law legally rec-ognizes only certain types of organization at thecommunity level: To be recognized communities need toform NGOs, private enterprises or cooperatives.Management arrangements can be formed at di!erent

scales. Under participatory forest management (PFM),single-village level cooperatives and grouped-villagelevel cooperatives have both been formed. Once formed,cooperatives have to conform to the cooperative law andits rules and regulations of operation, as overseen bygovernment Cooperative Bureaus.Much can be learnt from past experience of establish-

ing cooperatives and their development. Cooperativeshave proven success in business development and inmobilizing communities for a given purpose, particularlythose communities which are relatively loosely con-


nected. However the appropriateness of cooperatives forrangeland management and for providing the rightforum for the development of rangeland institutions isquestioned. This issue needs further consideration by rel-evant regional and federal government departments ifEthiopia is to identify, and scale-up, improved rangelandmanagement.

Local authorityAs stated above, the rangelands have historically beenmanaged according to customary governance systems.The advantage of working with a customary system isthat it recognizes and endorses the well-established rolesand rights of di!erent members of a community. It alsoincorporates the existing management mechanisms thatprevent overexploitation of resources, and promotes sus-tainable use and availability of resources for all commu-nity members, as well as occasional visitors. However,customary systems also have their limitations, as not allhave a history of inclusiveness. Certain groups withincommunities may feel, and indeed be, excluded and mar-ginalized. Support may be needed so that excludedgroups can be accommodated, and/or linkages madewith forums and institutions where these groups can befully represented and involved.

Capacity developmentIt is likely that the capacities of communities involved inthe rangeland management institution will need to bestrengthened to build the knowledge and skills requiredfor managing the rangelands in modern times. In orderto do this development practitioners and naturalresource advisors need to develop capacities and trainingskills in both community engagement and inclusiveness,and in promoting adaptive management of rangelandresources by a community-led management unit.The role of the rangeland management group will be

formally de"ned in the rangeland management plan andagreement (steps 4 and 5). The group will need to buildrecognition and understanding of itself, and its status, inrelation to the other institutions with which it will work.Central to the role of the management group is the abil-ity to make decisions about rangeland management, andto take action to follow up on those decisions. Good deci-sion-making will determine the success of the overallrangeland management system.The process described above is complex, and to help

keep the process on track it will be important to ensureclear communication between all parties throughout,using local language and ensuring step-by-step informa-tion dissemination to all PRM parties.

Local customary authorities in Afar meet to resolve a dispute involving the use of their dry season grazing areas.


The rangeland management unit

Once the rangeland management institution has beenidenti"ed and its roles and responsibilities have beenclari"ed and agreed, the next step is to establish the‘boundaries’of its jurisdiction. These are not hard andfast boundaries and should include reciprocal grazingarrangements with neighbors.It is likely that a map of the approximate rangeland

management unit under discussion will have been pro-duced as part of the investigation stage, and will showthe types and distribution of the resources found. Therangeland management institution should con"rm thatthis map, its ‘boundaries’, and its content, provide a su$-ciently detailed inventory of the resources found withinthe management unit. Ground truthing should also becarried out to ensure that the map re#ects the situationon the ground. It may be possible for an NGO or govern-ment o$ce to assist the community in digitizing thecommunity map (including the boundaries), althoughthis is not necessary. Nor is it always empowering for thecommunity members.As has been noted, ‘boundaries’ in pastoral areas are

seldom if ever like boundaries in more sedentary com-munities, as the rangelands are communally managedand di!erent groups of pastoralists have well establishedreciprocal grazing rights in neighboring management

Step 3 Defining the rangeland management unitand preparing the rangeland resource assessmentThe rangeland management unit is the area of land over which the PRM institution will have pri-mary jurisdiction and authority. De"ning this area, and establishing the presence and condition ofthe resources found within it through a participatory rangeland resource assessment, is the nextstep in the process of participatory rangeland management.

Negotiating PRM

2

units. Boundaries can therefore be considered some-thing of an alien concept. Traditionally, boundarieswhere one group’s authority ended, and another’sbegan, were simply ‘known’.However, for local government to approve the

authority of the rangeland management institution overan area of rangeland, it will be necessary for rangelandunits to be broadly de"ned— provided that all partiesunderstand that the users themselves must then workout their reciprocal grazing rights. Discussions andnegotiations with neighboring rangeland managementinstitutions at the early planning stage however cansharpen the debate and ensure that this issue is notoverlooked.The outcome of the process outlined above should be

a community-drawn map (perhaps supported by a digi-tized GIS map) that de"nes the following:

• The ‘known’boundaries of the rangeland manage-ment unit (albeit recognizing that these are porousand #exible);

• The di!erent types of natural resources found in themanagement unit, including grazing areas, wateringpoints, non-timber dryland products, community andindividual enclosures/exclosures, and mineral sitessuch as salt licks. The most important areas can behighlighted as ‘rangeland productivity hotspots’—


without which the whole pastoral system that func-tions in the area is at risk and which therefore shouldbe a!orded the most protection e.g. dry season graz-ing areas or watering points.

• Other important sites, services or resources includingsites of cultural and religious importance, settlements,agricultural land areas, health posts, etc.

• Key mobility routes can also be shown on the map,which will highlight the di!erent usage of resourcesand parts of the rangeland management unit at di!er-ent times of the year.

The mapping of soil types is another potentially usefulexercise that can generate information important forfuture resource management decisions. Governmentrepresentatives may be able to provide soil maps or

other useful information for understanding di!erent soiland habitat types.Community and government representatives will also

have to decide on broad, but useful, habitat or rangelandcondition types within each soil type. These habitat orrange condition types can then be mapped on top of soiltypes. The resulting map can be used to guide both man-agement and assessment decisions for speci"c sub-unitswithin the overall rangeland management unit. Thechosen habitat types should therefore be broad enoughto encompass large areas of land (probably on the scaleof hundreds of hectares), but speci"c enough to informmanagement planning. An example of possible habitattypes is shown in Table 2 below.Individual communities, however, may want to divide

the landscape into more, or di!erent, categories or sub-units that are more meaningful to them in terms of bothresources and management.Finally, di!erent management activities that are cur-

rently being undertaken within the PRM area should alsobe considered. These might include areas under cultiva-tion; areas where trees have been cleared or thinned;areas that have recently been burned; areas where otherrangeland restoration e!orts are being undertaken; andany other targeted management activities. Such informa-tion should be fully documented and supplement themap of the rangeland management unit.

The rangeland resource assessment

A participatory resource assessment report is part of thekey documentation for PRM that will enable communitiesto take up the legal management of the resources. Thecommunity should be supported in undertaking theassessment exercises and preparing the report as keyrangeland management tools.Once the overall rangeland management unit has been

de"ned and agreed upon by both the rangeland man-agement institution and the relevant government o$ce,it is necessary to collect more detailed information onthe types and current condition of the di!erent range-land resources. This can be achieved through carrying outa participatory rangeland resource assessment. A partici-patory rangeland resource assessment has twomainobjectives:

Box 2 Local land-use planning ata landscape level

In the past the mapping of rangeland resourcesand related management practices has been car-ried out at a kebele or Pastoral Association level.However this relatively small unit has proved to belimiting, and misses out larger livestock andhuman movements to access resources in the widerrangeland. It is better to identify any traditionalresource management units that will reflect andincorporate much better the resource use and man-agement practices of functioning and self-support-ing pastoral communities.

Recent work suggests that taking a landscape orwatershed approach to land use planning has manybenefits in a pastoralist context. Save the Chil-dren/US and SOS Sahel Ethiopia’s work with pas-toralists in Oromia region has shown that land useplanning of the units, described locally as the‘dheeda’, is both appropriate and highly effective.At this level a NRM institution already exists withrules and regulations concerning NRM use: thejarsa dheeda. Planning at this level can form thebasis from which larger-scale PRM processes can bedeveloped.


Table 2 Possible habitat types

i) To provide an inventory of resources and their condi-tion as a contribution to the rangeland managementplan and the rangeland management agreement,including the identi"cation of ‘rangeland productivityhotspots’ and/or areas that are particularly sensitiveand/or may require speci"c management interven-tions; and

ii) To provide a technical baseline of the resources andtheir condition against which to monitor subsequentchanges, including the e!ects of the managementactions that will be agreed upon in the rangeland man-agement plan. As such it is a "rst step in the design of aparticipatory monitoring system.

The participatory rangeland resource assessmentprocess consists of several key steps:

1. De"ning the rangeland sub-units or zones within theoverall rangeland management unit based on use,management, soil, and habitat areas, for use in thePRM agreement and for data collection;

2. Deciding where to collect baseline data based on theidenti"cation of di!erent sub-units or zones;

3. Deciding what data to collect, and how, depending onthe level of detail required and/or speci"c manage-ment concerns for the area;

4. Documenting assessment data collection protocol,including the design of data collection forms and iden-ti"cation of feedback/veri"cation methodologies;

5. Collecting baseline data by a teammade up of com-munity and government representatives;

6. Interpreting results by a teammade up of communityand government representatives;

7. Producing the assessment report, including the resultsof the mapping exercises, the results of the data col-

lected in each rangeland sub-unit or zone, an interpre-tation of these results, and management recommen-dations for each sub-unit or zone based on theseresults. The report can best be made available in theappropriate local language.

The process of carrying out a baseline participatoryrangeland resource assessment, and developing a long-termmonitoring program, should involve (if not be leadby) the full participation and input of the community. Inmany of the above steps key decisions will have to bemade and agreed upon by both community membersand government representatives. Development practi-tioners or natural resource advisors and/or a relevantresearch institution can facilitate this process.Note: This section presents an overview of the participatory rangeland resource

assessment process, while identifying areas that need to bemore fully devel-

oped to e!ectively use the process to guidemanagement decisions. More

detailed guidelines for developing a participatorymonitoring system are being

developed in a parallel process which will result in the publication of a hand-

book: “Monitoring Rangeland Health: A Guide for Facilitators and Pastoralist

Communities.”9

In Somali region gums and resins are tapped from local indi-genous trees. Ensuring that this is done sustainably is key tomaintaining the resource.


Experience with Participatory Forest Management (PFM)suggests that a resourcemanagement plan (be it forest,rangeland or other resource) forms a solid foundation forformal and legally supported agreements governing accessto resources and their management.


The next step in the PRM negotiation process is thedevelopment of the rangeland management plan. Theplan’s objective and actions should re#ect decisions thathave been informed by data collected in the precedingparticipatory rangeland resource assessment, for exam-ple the identi"cation of areas within the rangeland man-agement unit that need to be managed in a particularway. The rangeland management plan might follow thisstructure, though local adaptations should be made:

1. Introduction.

2. Description of the rangeland management unit,including a resource map and the information col-lected through the participatory rangeland resourceassessment.

3. Objectives of the rangeland management plan.

4. Rangeland management actions, including: rangelandresources and use; rights of access and managementresponsibilities; improvement and development; andrangeland health and condition monitoring.

5. Plans for monitoring and evaluation (M&E).

6. Methods for revision of the plan as part of an adaptivemanagement process.

Step 4 Developing the rangeland management planThe rangeland management plan is the vital last step before the drawing up of the rangeland man-agement agreement and its authorization. It is recommended that the plan be developed by therangeland management institution and be based on discussions with all relevant communitygroups and other stakeholders.

Negotiating PRM

2

Once the rangeland management institution has adraft plan, consultations and negotiations are necessarywith the appropriate local government o$ces. ‘Outside’facilitation by a third stakeholder may help ensure thatthese meetings are productive and supportive of theintended outcome.As part of the plan many important actions will need

to be considered, discussed, negotiated and agreedupon. These may include:

• Sustainable levels of grazing. These will be based uponthe resources available, their distribution, and themovement patterns of livestock (which can only partlybe predicted as mobility is primarily reliant on the cli-matic conditions of a particular year or period). Plan-ning should include provisions for periods of crisis,such as grazing of grass reserved for times of drought.

• The development of watering points and terms ofaccess to them. It may be necessary to restrict thedevelopment and access of some watering points ifadequate grazing is not available in the close vicinityto avoid overgrazing what is there.

• Sustainable levels of non-timber dryland productsincluding gums and resins, and plant products. These


should be in line with sustainable use protocols for dif-ferent groups, and species, of plants and products.

• The utilization and management of invasive speciessuch as Prosopis juli"ora and Acacia drepolobium.Sometimes there can be con#icts of interest betweenthose who want to utilize these species and those whowant to see them completely removed.

Key principles for the management planIssues of sustainability must not be compromised in themanagement plan. Further information may need to becollected on sustainable levels of resource use and har-vesting. If this is the case, then the gathering of requireddata and experimentation with grazing or harvestinglevels should become part of the plan of actions. Devel-opment practitioners or natural resource technical advi-sors can cover this task as part of their technical supportprovided to community managers.The rangeland management plan should be kept rela-

tively simple and brief, should be reviewed on a regularbasis, and should ideally set a vision for the next 25 yearsor more. As the management activities are carried out it

Borana community members work together to clear the bushthat has encroached on the rangeland.

Box 3 Woreda EnvironmentManagement Plans

In order to support the full participation of com-munities in the preparation and implementationof plans for environmental resources management,Woreda Environment Management Plans (WEMPs)are being developed through consultations andnegotiations between representatives from woredagovernments and local communities. A process ini-tiated by the federal Environment ProtectionAgency, the plans are for community implementa-tion with government support. In developingWEMPs a similar process is carried out as withinPRM based on investigation, negotiation andimplementation, including the establishment ofby-laws. Although currently being developed morein highland areas of the country, there is room foroverlap and complementarities between WEMPsand PRM plans in pastoral areas.

is important to test their e!ectiveness and impacts. Skillsand knowledge need to be built through practical experi-ence and the operation of the management plan.The plan’s monitoring and evaluation (M&E) needs

should be considered and de"ned at the planning stage.Communities and other stakeholders should de"ne theappropriate indicators to measure change. The baselinedata collected as part of the participatory rangelandresource assessment should form the basis of this M&Eplan. M&E systems should be established based onprocesses already used by community members and uti-lize their own knowledge systems, but should incorpo-rate appropriate scienti"c knowledge too. Developmentand natural resource technical advisors can assist com-munities to develop such systems. (M&E is discussed fur-ther in step 8).The most important principle is that the community

should develop the rangeland management plan. It mustbe based on their decisions on how to manage theresources. Development practitioners or natural resourcetechnical advisors must resist the urge to impose rulesand regulations and revert to a top-down approach. Themanagement plan needs to receive the approval of allthe communities living within the management unit.Without this approval it is unlikely that actions will betaken seriously, or even allowed.


The "nal step of the ‘negotiation’ stage of PRM is thedrawing up and signing of the rangeland managementagreement. It is likely that the formulation of the range-land management agreement will require extensivemeetings, discussions and negotiations between thegovernment o$ces and the rangeland managementinstitution, particularly on rights and responsibilities. The"nal agreement will require the signatures of the head ofthe appropriate woreda o$ce such as the Livestock, Cropand Development Bureau on behalf of the government,and the head or chairperson of the rangeland manage-ment institution on behalf of the community.A rangeland management agreement could be devel-

oped as the following:

Article 1 De"nitions

Article 2 Objectives of the agreement

Article 3 Location and condition/health of the range-land and its resources

Article 4 Description of the agreeing parties

Article 5 Bene"ts of the agreeing parties

Article 6 Rights and responsibilities of the parties

Article 7 Condition, legality and duration of theagreement

Sections one through three of the rangeland manage-ment agreement can include an introduction (similar tothe rangeland management plan), the de"nition of key

Step 5 Establishing therangeland management agreementThe rangeland management agreement is the binding contract document for participatoryrangeland management between the government authorities and the rangeland managementinstitution.

Negotiating PRM

2

terms, the objectives of the agreement (as de"ned in themanagement plan), and the condition/health and loca-tion of the rangeland and its resources.Section four contains detailed information about the

agreeing parties. On the government side this includeswhich o$ces are involved in the agreement. On the com-munity side, this includes the listing of the rangelandmanagement institution executive committee membersand group members.Section "ve of the agreement describes bene"t-shar-

ing arrangements. For example, if the community is man-aging a rangeland where there are usual (or primary) andoccasional (or secondary) users, the agreement shouldstate who has rights of access to the rangeland andunder what conditions. Further, it may be agreed forexample that if communities are bene"ting from the col-lection and sale of dryland products such as gums andresins, that a tax be paid to government and/or they beprovided with a share of the revenue. Such points shouldbe clearly stated in the agreement.Section six of the agreement is the clear speci"cation

of the rights and responsibilities of the two (or more) par-ties. Decisions about rights and responsibilities should benegotiated through discussions with and between thegovernment and the community (or communities). Therights and responsibilities need to be directly related tothe rules and regulations that have been agreed concern-ing the rangeland management unit (including sub-units


or zones) and its resources, for example who can do whatin the area and access which resources. Decisions need torelate to the objectives of sustainable rangeland man-agement.The "nal section stipulates the legal conditions of the

agreement. This includes the procedures to be followedin the event of a disagreement between the parties, adefault of contract by one of the parties, or the termina-tion of the contract.The duration of a rangeland management agreement

could be as little as 25 years or as much as 99 years (as

within forest management agreements and propertyleaseholds in cities) — this should be stated. Other legalterms, conditions and/or requirements should also benoted. In a situation where multiple users are involved itmay be thought useful that all such user groups agreeover the terms of the rangeland management agreementand sign it.The rangeland management agreement is a vital docu-

ment for PRM, and should be held by all parties. Theagreement can be made best available in the appropriatelocal language, and all parties should hold a copy.

Box 4 The experience of Participatory Forest Management in BoranaUnder PFM in Borana a new community institutionwas set up which complimented the pre-existingsystem controlled by the Gadaa. The new structurewas composed of four levels:

Jarsa Maddaa kan Fina Badaa — a forest man-agement group responsible for the management ofone or more forest compartments belonging to aparticular kebele, PA or madda.

Jarsa Ejjaa kan Fina Badaa — a forest manage-ment group charged with the responsibility of man-aging a given forest block belonging to anaggregate of madda.

Jaarsa Aanaa ka Finna Badda — a forest man-agement group composed of representatives of theJarsa Madda kan Fina Badaa, Gadaa and local gov-ernment bodies, which undertakes forest manage-ment at a district level.

Gumii Finna Badda — a forest managementassembly comprising the entire membership of theforest management groups functioning at the levelof district.

Both men and women were elected to these posi-tions, including illiterate, rich and poor. The role ofthe forest management group is to manage andprotect the forest from illegal extraction and fire,promote awareness creation among the local com-munity, reflect on forest management issues on a

bi-monthly basis at madda (or PA) level and on amonthly basis at district level. The group is incharge of regulating how, when and by whom theresource will be utilized and enforces rules and reg-ulations. It grants permits for certain uses of theforest and resource collection, and prohibits the cut-ting of re-growth, large trees and certain speciesthat have religious significance. Whether the personis poor or better off, the forest regulation is equallyapplicable to all community members. The collectionof dead wood cannot be carried out without theapproval of the forest management group. Defaultersfrom the regulations are subject to punishments tothe extent of exclusion from using any communallyowned resource. If someone is caught collecting aforest product illegally he/she could be subject to afine of five cattle or a five to ten year jail sentencealthough no one has received such a punishment sofar.

In general these forest management institutionsand the PFM process that they support, are function-ing well, with awareness and protection improvingwithin the communities and positive relationsbetween management groups and governmentbodies strengthened through regular meetings etc.The system can be said to have positively con-tributed to the sustainability of forest resource man-agement and utilization.


New or adapted roles for communityinstitutions in rangeland management

The activities that the community undertakes are criticalin determining the success of PRM. In the implementa-tion of PRM the community will have strengthened rolesas rangeland managers. While some activities will be newto community members, others may have been carriedout previously, though without formal recognition.Recognition of their new role is the basis of the new nat-ural resource relationship between government and thecommunity rangeland managers. The list below givessome examples of the new roles and activities for thecommunity. The list is not exhaustive.• Information providers of new rangeland users and uses.

• Legalized rangeland resource managers and rangelandresource users.

• Assessors of rangeland resources through the partici-patory rangeland resource assessment.

Step 6 New roles for communitiesand rangeland management advisorsParticipatory rangeland management requires an e!ective partnership between the appropriatelocal government o$ce and the community rangeland management institution, with each sideworking towards mutual goals. Important new changes are required in the roles of these partners,as well as in the roles played by supporting advisors/facilitators from NGOs and research institutes.

Implementing PRM

3

• Managers of the rangeland management institution.

• Resolvers of con#ict and competition between andwithin rangeland user groups.

• Decision makers of new rangeland rules and regula-tions.

• Implementers of rangeland management plans.

• Protectors and controllers of rangeland resources.

• Removers and controllers of invasive and damagingspecies.

• Selectors and planters of vegetation species for range-land/rangeland rehabilitation.

• Promoters of rangeland health and condition.

• Marketers of rangeland products.

• Evaluators of new ideas and technologies.

• Experimenters and actors with/within new rangelandmanagement approaches and processes.


• Adaptors to climate change and related in#uences.

• Communicators of own knowledge and "ndings toothers.

• Monitors and evaluators of participatory rangelandmanagement systems and practice.

Activities will further evolve as the members of therangeland management institutions and the pastoralistswho they represent, understand and develop their man-agement operations and skills. This is done throughlearning and practical experience and can be supportedand facilitated by both government and other partners.Such support will need to be on an ongoing basis as newchallenges arise and new skills are needed to overcomethem.

New or adapted roles for rangelandmanagement advisors

If PRM is to succeed, development and natural resourceadvisors from government and all other relevant stake-holders will also need to change. PRM o!ers a very di!er-ent approach to rangeland management. The list belowidenti"es some of the new roles and activities naturalresource advisors will need to play—with the furtherdevelopment and understanding of their roles acquiredthrough learning and practical experience.

• Investigators of local rangeland uses and users —rights and responsibilities.

• Identi"ers of local rangeland management systems—rules and regulations.

• Actors in the participatory rangeland resource assess-ment.

• Advisors to rangeland management institutions aboutways to monitor condition/health of rangelands andresources.

• Facilitators of rangeland based problem-solutionanalysis.

• Moderators of di!erent interests, and of con#ict andcompetition over resources.

• Facilitators in con#ict resolution and transformation.

• Negotiators of rangeland management rules and reg-ulations.

• Monitors of PRM processes and of rangeland manage-ment agreements.

• Advisors to rangeland management institutions.

• Experimenters of new rangeland managementapproaches and processes, including ways to improverangeland condition and health.

• Facilitators of ‘rangeland management institution torangeland management institution’ learning, commu-nication and exchange.

• Trainers in community rangeland management skillsand practice.

• Analysts of rangeland management problems.

• Generators of new technologies and innovations.

• Identi"ers of regional rangeland policies, rules and reg-ulations.

• Providers of information to complement rangelandmanagement institutions’ knowledge.

• Documenters / analysts of methods of PRM / dissemi-nators of PRM results.

In addition to the speci"c skills above, new rural devel-opment technical capacity is also essential. Skills in par-ticipatory development will be particularly importantincluding: Participatory Planning; Participatory Technol-ogy Development; Participatory Learning and Action;and Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation, includingParticipatory Impact Assessment. Such“participation”must be meaningful and of the highest degree if PRM isto succeed: communities must be allowed to lead theirdevelopment and natural resource processes.Other new skills implied in the new roles include con-

#ict management, facilitation and negotiation, commu-nity institution development and rangeland/drylandproduct processing and marketing skills. All these skillsare new in terms of what development and naturalresource professionals usually do.Ultimately, what is being asked for is a new commit-

ment and understanding from development practition-ers and natural resource advisors to support new systemsfor community managed resources. If rangeland man-agers are to rise to the challenge then new PRM curriculaand professional training will need to be put in place.This is perhaps a long-term change. In the short term,managers should request and seek out specialist training.


Rangelands now face new and negative threats and chal-lenges, such as climate change or the ‘invasion’of non-local plant species, for which adaptation is vital. But manynew and positive opportunities are also arriving, includ-ing improved communication networks that allow for agreater spread of knowledge and information, which canbe used to bene"t rangelands and those who live there.To improve resiliency and the means to cope with thenew threats, and to optimize the bene"ts of new oppor-tunities, community rangeland managers and develop-ment/ natural resource advisors need to workhand-in-hand to share and develop new knowledge andskills.The management of the rangeland management unit

will be determined by the speci"c conditions and healthof the rangeland and the uses required of it. An area ofwell-managed rangeland will require di!erent manage-ment skills and practices to those required for an area ofhighly disturbed and degraded rangeland in need ofrehabilitating. A dryland forest area will require di!erentmanagement skills and practices to those required for agrazing area to optimize grass production.New and/or revitalized tools such as the use of pre-

scribed "re or the establishment of communal grassenclosures as drought reserves are important manage-

Step 7 Arresting and reversingdeclining rangeland productivityImplementing new rangeland management approaches through a practical working partnership isessential for the success and maximum e!ectiveness of PRM. But communities should not be left toget on with managing rangelands without assistance: they need support, skills and technical know-how from professional rangeland and natural resource advisors, particularly in the face of manynew changes and pressures on rangeland environments.

Implementing PRM

3

Acacia drepalobium. The invasion of non ‘local’or alienspecies raises new challenges for communities as rangelandmanagers.


Box 6 Climate change challenges

Climatic fluctuations have always been a definingfeature of drylands, including rangeland areas, andpastoralism is a livelihood system that has enabledthose who live there to cope with these fluctua-tions. However global climate change is raising newchallenges for pastoral systems, with most climatemodels suggesting a decrease in the amount andpredictability of rainfall combined with an increasein evaporation caused by warmer temperatures. Toadapt to this the mobility of pastoralists and theirlivestock is, and will continue to be, critical.

Evidence of climate change in pastoral areas ofEthiopia is already resulting in, for example,increasing frequency of droughts. At the same timemany people and livestock movements are beingcurtailed due to: wet season grazing areas beinggiven over to commercial farming enterprises;increased sedentarization and privatization ofrangeland resources by those turning to agricultureas a livelihood; inter-ethnic conflicts; and urban-ization and expansion of settlements around waterpoints. As a result, the interests and benefits of afew are risking the displacement of the muchlarger group (those still relying on pastoralism asa livelihood base), and their ability to adapt toclimate change in the future.

Source: Eyasu Elias 200910

Box 5 Management of invasive species

Many pastoral areas have seen an increase in the‘invasion’ of alien, non-‘local’ species in the lastdecade. These include such species as Prosopis,Parthenium, and Acacia drepanolobium. Thesespecies have taken over grazing areas and blockedmigration routes and access to water points. Theyprove very difficult to control and almost impossi-ble to remove as they are easily spread and will re-invade a piece of land unless strict measures aretaken to prevent them from doing so.

Some species such as Prosopis do have beneficialqualities and can be used to provide resources suchas livestock feed, high quality timber and charcoal.However in most cases the benefits that suchplants can bring is minimal in comparison to thecosts they incur for communities and their live-stock. Integrated and strategic planning is requiredwith communities, governments, research organiza-tions and other stakeholders working together tofind solutions and ways to control the spread ofsuch species.

ment options to consider. However capacities may needto be (re)built if such practices are new or have not beenused for some time. Approaches and processes used inother parts of the world can also o!er ‘new’and positiveinput including such as ‘planned livestock grazing.’Using participatory and experimental approaches to

develop new community dryland practices, based uponand utilizing indigenous knowledge and customary prac-tices, is the way forward. Participatory Technology Devel-opment (PTD) can be used in order to develop and tryout (experiment) appropriate rangeland based trials. Forexample, where the management plan aims to rehabili-tate a rangeland area and encourage the growth of spe-ci"c high value grass species, the community members,supported by the rangeland manager, can set up anumber of area based experiments in order to determinebest species to introduce and manage.In some areas, rangelands have been degraded so

much that simply reducing grazing pressure is not

enough to allow the land to recover. In these cases, com-munities may consider doing some ecological restorationor rehabilitation to promote land recovery. Though bothcommunities and rangeland managers may have someknowledge on and skills for this, it is likely that these canbe improved, and lessons learnt from other rangelandareas and experiences. Rehabilitation or restoration activ-ities, for example, include reducing erosion throughplugging up gullies and laying down obstructions toslow sheet erosion; facilitating plant establishmentthrough such as furrowing; and improved livestock man-agement. All these techniques will need to be tested andadapted by communities.


Pastoralists are highly skilled at monitoring the range,with community members holding valuable indigenousknowledge about rangelands, their processes and com-ponents. However, such knowledge is now fading as tra-ditional rangeland management faces new threats andnew skills and knowledge are now needed to cope withand adapt to these changes (see step 7).For the PRM process it is recommended that knowl-

edgeable rangeland managers are paired with talentedand committed development and natural resource advi-sors, to devise appropriate M&E systems that are fullycapable of measuring the condition/health and produc-tivity of the rangelands and any changes occurring. Bydoing so the more science-based M&E systems can becombined with methods that are traditionally used bycommunities, and a system established which thenre#ects the needs, capacities and skills of those imple-menting it. Enabling the community to carry out partici-patory M&E of their rangeland management practices is

Step 8 Participatory monitoring and evaluationThe e!ectiveness of its monitoring and evaluation system will ultimately determine the success ofthe PRM process. Communities need to develop their own M&E systems as part of taking up, orstrengthening, their rangeland management roles. There are two key steps within the PRM processwhere M&E must be integrated: in the negotiating stage when developing the rangeland manage-ment plan, and here in the implementation stage where M&E should be used to facilitate adaptivemanagement and/or help determine best management practices.

Implementing PRM

3

crucial and a key area of capacity building for improvingand developing community management.

M&E for the rangeland management plan

If the objectives of the rangeland management plan areclearly de"ned, and incorporate useful scienti"c knowl-edge (collected through the participatory rangelandresource assessment, step 3), then developing monitor-ing tools is relatively simple. The key is to ensure that thecommunities articulate what changes they want to see inorder to improve their rangeland, for example anincrease/reduction in a particular species, or certain prac-tices used or controlled. The collection and use of datawithin M&E systems can present a key challenge torangeland management groups, particularly to non-liter-ate groups. Non-literate methods of data collection andanalysis can be developed based upon localmethods/tools already used.


The plan needs to ensure that PRMmonitoring andevaluation becomes part of every day management prac-tice. But monitoring needs to be more than a checkingmechanism by community rangeland managers: the M&Esystem needs to support positive outcomes or impactbased on the rangeland management plan.

M&E for adaptive management

Mechanisms need to be put in place to systematicallyreview the results of M&E processes within the manage-ment plan, to re#ect upon them and to develop newactions based on them as part of adaptive rangelandmanagement. Regular woreda (district) level PRM work-ing group meetings to bring key government and com-munity PRM actors together to discuss issues arising, andresolve problems, have emerged as a useful reviewmechanism for M&E information, and have ensured thatthe information is collectively analyzed and acted upon.Fundamentally the aim of M&E is to improve imple-

mentation. In a relatively new process like PRM it isessential that M&E be used positively to improve the PRMsystem. This is especially important in this early period asPRM is established, developed and expanded.

1 NRM Regional Technical Advisor for USAID funded Enhanced Livelihoods in the Mandera Triangle/Enhanced Livelihoods in SouthernEthiopia (ELMT/ELSE).

2 Director of the Livelihoods Unit, Save the Children/US

3 Bale EcoRegion Sustainable Management Project

4 Key Steps in Establishing Participatory Forest Management: A #eldmanual to guide Practitioners in Ethiopia, 2007. Best Practice Series No. 1.Compiled by FARM-Africa/SOS Sahel Ethiopia, Oromiya Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development and Southern Nations andNationalities Peoples Region Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development. London.

5 Safriel and Adeel 2005. “Dryland Systems”Chapter 22 in R. Hassan, R. Scholes and N. Ash. Volume 1. Current Status and Trends. Ecosystems andHumanWell-Being. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.U.S: Island Press. Internet: http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/Condition.aspx#download

6 SOS Sahel Ethiopia, 2008. Pastoralism in Ethiopia: Its Total Economic Values and Development Challenges. For IUCN-WISP, Nairobi.

7 EEA (Ethiopian Economic Association), 2004/05. Transformation of the Ethiopian Agriculture: Potentials, Constraints and Suggested InterventionMeasures. Report on the Ethiopian Economy. Volume IV. Addis Ababa

8 A draft policy and legislation for pastoralist areas has been developed for the Afar region and another is being developed for Somali region.

9 Riginos, C., J.E. Herrick, S.R. Sundaresan, J. Worden, J. Belnap, and M. Kinnaird. 2009.Monitoring Rangeland Health: A Guide for Facilitators andPastoralist Communities. Nanyuki, Kenya: Mpala Research Centre.

10 Eyasu Elias (2009) Threats of Climate Change on Pastoral Production Under Restricted HerdMobility: A Case Study in Borena. A report for SOSSahel Ethiopia.

Endnotes

Box 7 Definition of monitoringand evaluation

Monitoring is the on-going process of collectingdata in order to measure the progress, and/or thecondition, of an activity to guide implementation.For example, if invasive species have been removedre-growth needs to be measured and monitored. Orif grass and tree seedlings have been planted aspart of a rehabilitation program, the rangelandmanager needs to monitor (collect information on)their survival and/or growth rate in order to knowwhether to continue or adjust the activity.

Evaluation is the periodic review of all the dataand information gathered through the monitoring.Evaluation is an in depth analysis at a particularpoint in time of an ongoing or completed activityfor learning and future planning.

Both monitoring and evaluation should promotejoint learning and improved implementation,although evaluations are likely to involve a widerrange of actors.

Italo Rizzi, LVIAJanny Poley, Netherlands Embassy,Jason Forauer, Save the Children/USJohn Graham, USAIDJohnathan Napier, FARM AfricaKassaye Teshager, Action for DevelopmentKidanemariam Jembere,WaterAid Ethiopia,Kristin Helz, Oxfam GBLemma Dinka, SOS Sahel EthiopiaLemma Gizachew, FAOLemessa Demie, CARE EthiopiaMaria Ruiz-Bascaran, Save the Children/UKMarianne Akumu, UNEPMahelet, UNEPMassimiliano Rossi, LVIAMarthe Strommon, Norwegian Development FundMateos Matiso, Federal Environment Protection AgencyMekuria Argaw, HoA-RegEFN, AAUMichael Assefa, Norwegian People’s AidMitiku Tiksa, SOS Sahel/AFDMoges Abebe, CordAidMohammed Abdinoor, USAIDMuktar AbdukeMulugeta Belayhun, ConsultantMustafa Mohammed, Oxfam GB JijigaNemeraWoyessa, CAFOD/Trocaire/SCIAFNikolai Hutchinson, PACT EthiopiaOkeba Botie, Oromia Pastoral Development CommissionRezene Fessehaie, Ethiopian Institute for Agriculture ResearchRobert Bowen, Save the Children/USSatishjumar Belliethathan, HoA-RegEFN, AAUSolomon Abebe, Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural DevelopmentSolomon Bekure, Ethiopian Land Administration ProgramSolomon Demlie, ConsultantSolomon Desta, GL-CRSP PARIMASolomonWakgari, ConsultantSora Adi, ConsultantStrike Mkandla, UNECASue Edwards, Institute for Sustainable DevelopmentTafera Mukie, FAOTalew Daressa, ConsultantTarekegn Tola, FAOTaye Tessema, Ethiopian Institute for Agriculture ResearchTefera Mengistu,Wondo Genet Forestry CollegeTekalign Kebede, SOS Sahel/AFDTeklearegay Jirane, FARM AfricaTesfu Kahsay, CARE EthiopiaTesfaye Gesiso, Action for DevelopmentTom Haverteart, CordAidTrudi Dale, Save the Children/UKValdemar Holmgren, UNDPWorku Chibssa, SOS Sahel EthiopiaYacobWondimkun, USAID

ContributingMembers of the NRMTWG, NAIROBICary Farley, ELMT, CARE SomaliaGirma Kassa, ELMT, CARE SomaliaWalter Knausenberger, USAIDIbrahim Nur, ELMT, CARE SomaliaVanessa Tilstone, ELMT CARE Somalia

ContributingMembers of the Natural Resource ManagementTechnicalWorking Group (NRMTWG), ETHIOPIAA. Bruk, IOM-UNAbay Bekele, ACDI/VOCAAbdi Hussein Abdullahi, PCAE/IDSAbebe Mulatu, Ethiopian Land Administration ProgramAde"resWorku, Ethiopian Institute for Agriculture ResearchAbdirahman Ahmed, Livestock, Crop and Development Bureau, JijigaAbdirahman Ali, Save the Children/UKAbdulhakim Mohammed, Save the Children/USAddisu Abebe, LVIAAdrian Cullis, Save the Children/USAhema Tadesse, Save the Children/USAhmed Osman, Livestock, Crop and Development Bureau, JijigaAlan Duncan, ILRI,Alawis Ahmed, FARM AfricaAliyu Mustefa, CARE EthiopiaAlmaz Tadesse,Wild CODEAndy Catley, Tufts UniversityAraya Asfaw, HoA-RegEFN, AAUAyan Abdaila, OWDAAyele Gebre Mariam, Development Fund Norway,Ben Irwin, SOS Sahel/FARM AfricaBeruk Yemane, Oxfam GBBiruk Asfaw, Save the Children/USBoku Tache, ConsultantChalachew Agona"r, Oxfam AmericaCharles Hopkins, CARE EthiopiaDadi Amosha, GL-CRSP PARIMADahir Ahmed, Food Security Bureau, JijigaDereje Agona"r, Federal Environment Protection AuthorityDereje D. LVIADid Boru, Save the Children/USDjihan SkinnerDoyo Hargessa, Save the Children/USDubable Admassu, USAIDDula Etana, CARE EthiopiaElias Getachew, Save the Children/USEmma Proud, MercyCorpsEnsermuWorati, Biology Department, AAUEphrem Haile, Biology Department, AAUEyasu Elias, ConsultantFasil Demeke, MercyCorpsFerhan Abduladir, Save the Children/USFeyera Abdi, SOS Sahel EthiopiaFiona Flintan, Save the Children/USGebru Jeber, Ethiopian Meterological AgencyGedlu Mekonnen, FAOGeleta Simesso, PACT EthiopiaGenene Regassa, CARE EthiopiaGenet AbeberuGetachew Asefa, COOPIGetachew Gebru, GL-CRSP PARIMAGifawosen Tessema, Somali Pastoral Areas Development/MOFAGijs van’t Klooster, FAOGinjo Giya, Community Vision EthiopiaGirma Mulugeta, Talent for ChangeHaileyesous Brook, UNEPHailu Meskela, FARM AfricaHoussein Rayaleh, HoA-RegEFN, AAU

Introductory Guidelines to Participatory Rangeland Management in Pastoral Areas

Documents

Transcript of Introductory Guidelines to Participatory Rangeland Management in Pastoral Areas