Sustainable adaptation under adverse development? - Climate Change Adaptation and Development: Transforming Paradigms and Practices - page 188

Much of the conflict of values and interests can be traced back to the
Ethiopian government's development strategy that emphasizes 'modernization'
through settled agriculture. This view is in stark contrast with the livelihoods
and lifestyles preferred by the local population. When five key informants in
each site were asked about their favoured way of life, all said that they wanted
to be pastoralists (and if possible increase their herd size), indicating that this
is the main ambition among young and old alike. A Mille respondent who had
lost most of his livestock explained: 'I'd prefer to be a pastoralist - but due to the
challenges if we get equipment like water pumps from the government, I would
try to do farming.' Several respondents saw government plans as promoting a
settled lifestyle, and felt that this government orientation, combined with all
the other changes, would force them to become farmers. According to one key
informant in Mille, the government was actively settling people by allocating
to each a half-hectare of land for cultivation on the banks of the Awash River.
A deliberate government prioritization of cultivation has resulted in the
enclosure of land for farming in the Awash valley (Gedamu et al. 1999), with a
government crop extension package contributing to over 4000 ha of land being
converted to small-scale agriculture, mainly for maize and vegetables (Afar
State Adaptation Plan of Action 2010:24). Farming is currently a minor activity
among the Afar in our study sites (Afar State Adaptation Plan of Action 2010).
However, the transition from pastoralism to agriculture forms part of a general
development strategy for pastoral areas in Ethiopia, based on the fact that the
government puts a very different value on pastoralism than do the pastoralists
themselves (Gedamu et al. 1999; Kassa 2001; Tesfay and Tafere 2004; Hagmann
and Mulugeta 2008; Behnke and Kerven 2013).
Importantly, values and interests can also vary within the local communities,
with the government pathway being embraced by some members. Values and
interests may also vary between different government and other formal policy-
making institutions, though this is not investigated here. Kassa (2001) has
described how in other areas of Afar, when floodplain lands are set aside for
farming, the incomes from farming go to a few individuals, whereas the costs
(loss of key drought grazing areas) must be borne by the entire community.
This de facto privatization of land is often accepted locally because it profits an
influential member of the community, often someone who is highly educated
or a clan/political leader (Behnke and Kerven 2013).
Of course, farming can constitute a form of community diversification of
incomes and adaptation of livelihood systems in the face of declining herds
and grazing lands. However, increasing local inequities and loss of dry-season
grazing severely diminish the adaptive capacity of the community. Further, as
farming (including irrigation farming) is so heavily dependent on rainfall, such
a development may mean greater sensitivity to drought and floods. Although
rangeland productivity may decline with climate change (Ericksen et al. 2013),
a shift to livestock production may prove more viable than cultivation in semi-
arid areas (Jones and Thornton 2009). Irrigation is not necessarily a sustainable